Basis for my gov belief's

[steve74baywin]

An attempt to explain why I feel the gov should be limited. Why it shouldn't use force to achieve more than the protecting of basic human rights, the rights inherent in us. Also how think the start of this country was at least portrayed to the people to be.

It starts with what is thought to be inherent in us.
I like to explain things from a natural stand point, or one where we attempt to remove a bunch of man made or taught ideals, at least for this basis. This is to explain a basis for rule or control.
It would appear that most humans feel it is an inherent right to govern there own body and property.
Most humans tend to agree that if another is now present, he governs his body and you govern yours. I don't feel I can govern my body and his. If I want to govern mine, I need to honor his right to govern his, or I loose the basis for governing my own. If 10 humans are present, we still don't jump to using force upon one of the ten to get him to share work in your garden.
I say we as humans operate this way now everyday in our life. Ten of you go camping, 4, 5 or more of you do not use force to make the 10th person help put up a tent. Most of us operate knowing it would not be right for a few of us to gang up and use our force to make someone else do what we want. Now if that 10th person was hurting the 9th person, many would say force to stop him is right. These things I say most of us know and understand as right and wrong, we operate by this constantly. Now there are a few that violate this, but the above is to explain the basis for a system, not to say no one does wrong. Even the guy who choses to use force many times knows it is wrong, he just lost it or made a decision to do wrong.
No matter how many get together to form a group, it still does not become right to use force to impose your will or idea upon the other. This I say is inherent in us, baring a few troubled people. Government is set up to protect humans rights to govern themselves and property, to protect us from those who don't honor this. Why do most humans feel it is right? Well, if I don't want to be hit in the head with a baseball bat, I understand that if we promote an activity, or if I was to say it is okay to do, and I do it, I'm also at risk having my head hit with one. I don't want my head hit with one, therefore I don't condone the practice of hitting people in the head with a bat. We understand that if I want a world where it isn't legal for me to be killed, I can't run around doing it. We each are interested in our own safety, and we understand that if I promote and do an action, I can expect it done to me.

This is the moral basis.

No matter how many people get together, and no matter what great ideas or visions they come up with, they can't force others to go along with it.
What happens is people hide behind groups, or they set up groups and this now makes them disconnected from what they are actually doing. They become disconnected from a basic right or belief we have as humans. But that is a whole other topic. If they had to point the gun to get you to do it, they probably wouldn't, but if they get a group to do it, they have detached themselves from it. This one of the dangers of groups. Gang violence shows some of the other dangers. I suggest a simple movie to watch called The Wave.


So the above system is the basis.
Picking a system to rule based upon which one is better or provides better is not the correct way to pick a system. Better for who? Better in whose mind? These things certainly can not be agreed upon as easily as "it's not right to use force to get you to give me a car".
All the above so far is to explain how no man can set up a group to violate another's right to life, liberty, and governing himself.
From this point all else follows.
A group can be set up to protect the individual.

One can go for their world dreams, but while honoring the above. The above is the basis for a limited government. Honor individual freedoms. People with dreams and visions, please go ahead, but honor the above. You can't get a group to start forcing everyone on a continent to labor for it. That just isn't right. Your vision and dream of the world might not be everyone else's? Who gets to pick the dream? How many people in a group makes enough people to warrant their dream being the one imposed on people by force?

[ruckman101]

So how would this be expressed practically rather than philosophically?


neal

[steve74baywin]

How can it be expressed practically?
There are tons of scenarios.
It is like a logic table.
In some way it would not be that much different than today. Minus the guns and force.
People in a community want a good road to the city. Or the merchants in the city want a good road to the community. Just like today they have to acquire the land and build the road. How they get the money can vary. Some of the merchants or people from the community chip in for it.
There really are tons of ways it can go. As long as there is no force used to achieve, no violation of property rights.
Neil, you can't think of anyways?

Every action observes the above. A Gov set up to protect the above. Just as with a group of 10 in a village or out camping, people protect each other, communities all the way to our country can do this. Money can be given for such a task to fund the police.
I take a pause here to mention the two different scenarios I could explain.
1) Adopting to the above from the point we are at now.
2) If it started that way in the first place, and stayed that way.

Roads seem to be a big topic.
What is public? If there is land that is deemed public, then what does that mean? Belonging to everyone? Let's say yes to that. Would everyone have to agree to allow a road to be put in on that land? That I do not know. If they are allowed to put in the road, they do so without forcing money from anyone. If they put said road on public land, they can't claim ownership. They would be donating it to the public.

If people want to put in roads where they live, they do that.

It is like a logic table guided by the observance of property rights.


I do need to mention this, to address something Mike (Lanval) mentioned.

Why do I feel my way is better.
I feel my way is better because it observes someones right to govern themselves and doesn't use guns to violate that.
I do not think the determination of what makes a government better is if it provides food cheaper, or more wealth, or cheaper healthcare or better roads.
Better things doesn't make it better.
What makes better things ultimately is people.
Now once again, voluntary systems provided after the above, and while still honoring the above can be rated on such things as if the roads are better or not.

[RussellK]

But hasn't it always been a part of our condition that there are individuals that want something for nothing? You know. The Little Red Hen Story? Would they stay off my road? Out of my well? Away from my hospital? So to repeat Neal's question. How does this work practically?

[steve74baywin]

But hasn't it always been a part of our condition that there are individuals that want something for nothing? You know. The Little Red Hen Story? Would they stay off my road? Out of my well? Away from my hospital? So to repeat Neal's question. How does this work practically?

You have the limited gov set up to protect your rights to property.
If it's your well (you put forth the effort and it is on your land). The limited gov is there for that.
How did that limited gov and police get funded? You all in that area fund it to the level you want. If a few people with more money and things to protect want more police, they can fund more or, they can protect what they own more. Like today. Some people park there car in there drive and leave it unlocked. In today's world there are police, and they might catch someone in the act of stealing, but probably not, but the police help after the crime. Someone who fears the car being stolen more so, locks it, some put in an alarm or a kill switch, some put it in a garage, some pay for an alarm system for the whole house. Some put up a wall around the entire property.
Same thing with a road. So a community or business puts it in and doesn't want free riders. They call the police to report it, or they implement measures to prevent it. Just like how some of us do to things to prevent our VW's from being stolen, and we do it with our own time and expense.

[Amskeptic]

But hasn't it always been a part of our condition that there are individuals that want something for nothing? You know. The Little Red Hen Story? Would they stay off my road? Out of my well? Away from my hospital? So to repeat Neal's question. How does this work practically?

You have the limited gov set up to protect your rights to property.
If it's your well (you put forth the effort and it is on your land). The limited gov is there for that.
How did that limited gov and police get funded? You all in that area fund it to the level you want. If a few people with more money and things to protect want more police, they can fund more or, they can protect what they own more. Like today. Some people park there car in there drive and leave it unlocked. In today's world there are police, and they might catch someone in the act of stealing, but probably not, but the police help after the crime. Someone who fears the car being stolen more so, locks it, some put in an alarm or a kill switch, some put it in a garage, some pay for an alarm system for the whole house. Some put up a wall around the entire property.
Same thing with a road. So a community or business puts it in and doesn't want free riders. They call the police to report it, or they implement measures to prevent it. Just like how some of us do to things to prevent our VW's from being stolen, and we do it with our own time and expense.

Steve, I don't know quite how to respond. In reading your opinions, I see that the notion of government guns and force is high on your list, but we really are a Nation of Laws. A tremendous amount of thought went into the structure of our government by some real thinkers utilizing philosophical principles that preceded the founding of this nation by centuries.

The government is not allowed to be a bully. Due Process still exists. Eminent Domain still requires that landowners be compensated. We can peaceably assemble and air our grievances. We can pile onto the Mall in Washington and wake up Congress. Though messy and on a large scale, we have executed your limited government wish list. There are people, ignorant imperfect poorly educated people in government who come up with all sorts of hare-brained ideas to perpetuate their agenda, but we have checks and balances that by and large catch the most egregious idiocy.

"You all in that area fund it to the level you want." That is exactly what the structuring of our states has tried to do.

"Same thing with a road. So a community or business puts it in and doesn't want free riders. They call the police to report it, or they implement measures to prevent it." Really? Like privatized tollways in California that cater to the rich who need to get to Newport Beach unbothered by the hordes of proletariats sweating in the traffic jams on roads they indeed paid taxes for?

The current system is not perfect, but neither is it evil. It is comprised of people like you and me with many opinions and arguments and some real assholes gaming the system for greedy gain, but truly, this government, this society, We the People, are worthy of respect.
Colin

[steve74baywin]

but we really are a Nation of Laws. A tremendous amount of thought went into the structure of our government by some real thinkers utilizing philosophical principles that preceded the founding of this nation by centuries.
Colin

We need to change that, we should not be a nation of laws. I too think alot of thought went into it, but it changed to something it ought not be.

The government is not allowed to be a bully. Due Process still exists. Eminent Domain still requires that landowners be compensated. We can peaceably assemble and air our grievances.
Colin

I think it is being a bully now. I hope due process still exist, and I think it may.
We need alot of changes.

The current system is not perfect, but neither is it evil. It is comprised of people like you and me with many opinions and arguments and some real assholes gaming the system for greedy gain, but truly, this government, this society, We the People, are worthy of respect.
Colin

You are correct in that it shouldn't be given only one label to cover all, such as evil. It can be evil, it can be good. It is made of people who can chose evil and good.
I hope we the people do make changes through this due process.
We clearly need more people knowing.
The divide and conquer phrase comes to mind. They seem to always get about half the people on one side, and half on the other. Both missing the boat, and neither side enough to make a change. This is why I like the sides of "people being free" vs "Government not letting people be free" sides. This way it is all the people vs the gov, instead of the people divided into two groups opposing each other while trying to oppose the gov. United we stand, divided we fall or fail.

[steve74baywin]

Anyone wants to throw a scenario at me, or wants a different aspect of how a Libertarian, or limited government might actually play out. Post it here. I will do my best.
I can give examples from two perpectives.
1)If we kept to this from the beginning.
2)Make changes to get back to it from where we are at now.

[Hippie]

Anarchy?
I think the main thing comes down to the exact point at which government (supposedly, and largely still--us) keeps off.
I don't want to be micromanaged either. But I don't want to be bullied by private concerns, either....like corporate America. Alos I would like an element of "socialism" to continue in the form of public infrastucture. I do not think it is a good idea to privatize everything. It's not appropriate. I am not a laissez faire economist as is the trend now for these reasons. That doesn't mean I'm for over regulation, either.
The disagreement comes with how much is too much, I think.

[steve74baywin]

Anarchy?
I think the main thing comes down to the exact point at which government (supposedly, and largely still--us) keeps off.
I don't want to be micromanaged either. But I don't want to be bullied by private concerns, either....like corporate America. Alos I would like an element of "socialism" to continue in the form of public infrastucture. I do not think it is a good idea to privatize everything. It's not appropriate. I am not a laissez faire economist as is the trend now for these reasons. That doesn't mean I'm for over regulation, either.
The disagreement comes with how much is too much, I think.

Maybe we would never get smaller than we are ready for?
Think about how we would get to a Libertarian form. First enough people would have to understand and want it. Then we would have enough elected officials. Then we would start perhaps with some of the biggest violations. It would be a good change in peoples thinking and time to get to that point. It's like the government would only get smaller as the number of people wanting it grew, based on an increase in their understanding. So maybe it would never be smaller than we could handle. It might take a long time to get to a limited Libertarian form, and who knows how long to get to Anarchy if ever.

[ruckman101]

So let's take roads as an example. A person decides to opt out of funding a new needed roadway, because they don't plan on using it. Yet even without operating an auto or truck or whatever on the proposed road, or planning to never even take their transportation vehicle of choice, say a bicycle, on the roadway. To truly not take advantage of the road, this person would be raising all their own food, and what happens when you need a new tube of grease to pack the hubs of your bicycle? That tube of grease wouldn't be on the store shelf without the road to allow delivery of that product to the store.

Ok, so the group let's the person contribute a pro-rated amount, so now, still staying off the road, the person can get groceries and goods. What kind of hellaciously convoluted out of control database would be needed to track all the exceptions? What percentage should I pay to enjoy the benefits of the road? The same as the plant down the way trucking out bags of cement to sell all over the country? How do you quantify the value of infrastructure?

To date, your descriptions of a "libertarian" government strike me as an ideal, but unrealistic in application.

This thread is titled "Basis for my gov belief's". What about those who don't share those "belief's". Parallel governments? It doesn't sound like force is an option.


neal

[steve74baywin]

Yet even without operating an auto or truck or whatever on the proposed road, or planning to never even take their transportation vehicle of choice, say a bicycle, on the roadway. To truly not take advantage of the road, this person would be raising all their own food, and what happens when you need a new tube of grease to pack the hubs of your bicycle? That tube of grease wouldn't be on the store shelf without the road to allow delivery of that product to the store.
Ok, so the group let's the person contribute a pro-rated amount, so now, still staying off the road, the person can get groceries and goods. What kind of hellaciously convoluted out of control database would be needed to track all the exceptions? What percentage should I pay to enjoy the benefits of the road? The same as the plant down the way trucking out bags of cement to sell all over the country? How do you quantify the value of infrastructure?

Sure he needs a tube of grease, and I guess your saying the tube of grease was delivered via the road. Well, the transportation cost of getting the grease to him would also include whatever cost the road was to the transportation company.
In other words, Any goods, service, or even friend visiting, if they used the road, they paid, hence the cost of the road is already covered. The truck delivering the goods paid, the goods have that cost built into it.
I liked that example, cause lots of times I look at the guy who may want to spend his entire life on his property, but is forced to pay for all the stuff others want.
Did I answer your first question? If the goods travel the road, then the fee would be covered for the road and should, like all cost, be reflected in the price of the goods.

To date, your descriptions of a "libertarian" government strike me as an ideal, but unrealistic in application.

This thread is titled "Basis for my gov belief's". What about those who don't share those "belief's". Parallel governments? It doesn't sound like force is an option.

neal

I'm not 100% sure I understand your question. I will answer per what I think.
If some doesn't want just the limited form, a gov set up to protect our liberties, right to property, to prevent hurting killing and theft. Well, there is nothing stopping them from getting into some other agreement. If someone wants a neighborhood that is like one of those today that prevents tons of stuff (deed restricted), HOA's, they certainly are free to. If someone, like today, builds a neighborhood, they can have restrictions that people contract into, just like today.
They can agree to move into an eco-village, shared community. They can join any health/medical plan/insurance they want to. If they all head out and earn money, and when they get back at the end of the day they want to spread there money out on the table and divided it up equally, there choice.
I have a feeling you were looking for something a bit different.
I could take guess, but that would be a waste of time,,,IE, answering a question you did not ask.
Clarify please.

[ruckman101]

It just seems that instead of a uniformly agreed upon system, we would end up with, what's the population now? that many individual, differing contracts. That says to me a larger government.


neal

[steve74baywin]

It just seems that instead of a uniformly agreed upon system, we would end up with, what's the population now? that many individual, differing contracts. That says to me a larger government.
neal

The number of "governments" would stay the same, they would all get smaller though.
I don't see a major increase in the other things you mention. There already are tons of contracts even with the huge governments we have. I signed one for internet, my cell phone, Um, well my list has gotten smaller over the years. But if anything the number of contracts for some of us might go down because some of these contracts might be forced upon us by the gov now, but not then. There already are tons of medical insurance companies, and they require contracts.
Give me some examples of things that people would want above and beyond the limited gov that would cause this addition your thinking of?
Roads, I guess would be one. But, the system to support and enforce the roads now is a very large and probably inefficient and corrupt, driver licenses and forced auto insurance has added a huge entity to it.

[ruckman101]

All of the "opt out" exemptions. Septic tank and well owners, local roads only, federal taxes but not for war (I'd be on that list), all the "sovereign citizen" exceptions, child labor, the abortion camps, the "english language only" groups, all the social agenda items get real sticky, racists, all the different religions, bicyclists, etc etc etc., toxic waste management.

While faith in the honesty, integrity, respect, and common sense logic of our brothers and sisters on this planet is admirable, history notes it is also very naive. Again, an ideal. Humanity has been entangled in violence as long as there has been humanity, as evidenced by flesh shredding cuspid teeth still in our mouths.

While I am optimistic about resolving the consequences of global warming, I'm not as optimistic that my fellow humans behavior can change at the level needed to realize your vision of an ideal limited government. Weiner comes to mind.

I think I've made the comparison before, who is for unlimited government? As many people as there are in favor of puppy kicking.


neal