Change my mind about government

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
35,203
28,217
136
But surely in practice you know that it is exactly the government that does that. Our rights didn’t come from a magical man in the sky, they came from the fact that we created a government that protects them.




So you oppose road building and public schools? Those seem to have been pretty great uses of government despite not being about external threats.
This touches on the issue of promoting the general welfare, innovation, advancement and the like. It is not so easy for some to see that these things also boil down to minimizing suffering, but they do. For example, promoting these things prevents us from falling behind other countries to the point that they could impose their will on us, which could lead to great suffering.
 

soundforbjt

Lifer
Feb 15, 2002
17,785
6,032
136
Government's job is the protect our rights and our borders.
So no need for long range bombers or ships, glad you want the military to be cut down to just protecting the borders. No need for bases outside the US, no need for nukes, etc. Glad you thought this through before responding.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
35,203
28,217
136
Sorry, but the whole "people are completely in charge of their fate" argument is and has always been garbage.
Of course, for the most part. But there is still a large kernel of truth to his perspective. It is just very easy to take the perspective way too far and very easy to use it to "justify" horrific acts.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
35,203
28,217
136
I think that at least for the purposes of our government, they were expressed when we declared independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

So one could say that the purpose of government is to preserve the right of people to express themselves on matters of reducing suffering as the communally understand that to be, how we self define, life, liberty and happiness.

Furthermore, as an aside, we have in place now a government that does not correspond to the majority of the people and therefore will not stand. Our conscious understanding of the inalienable rights we are entitled to is evolving through time.
Again, I don't see how any of that conflicts with my statement. Can you give a specific example of a conflict?
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
35,203
28,217
136
So no need for long range bombers or ships, glad you want the military to be cut down to just protecting the borders. No need for bases outside the US, no need for nukes, etc. Glad you thought this through before responding.
A lot of people subscribe to isolationist policies. This is another example of an ideal that can be good if you don't take it too far, but is very easy to take too far and very difficult to see the negative effects if you don't want to see them.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,200
14,875
136
Again, I am discussing what the government should be, not what it currently is. However, I do not think anything in the Constitution conflicts with my premise. Do you disagree? Do you have an example?

I think the constitution lists what the government should be a and I agree with it. Our current government does not live up to its goals.
 

Indus

Diamond Member
May 11, 2002
9,750
6,365
136
I think the constitution lists what the government should be a and I agree with it. Our current government does not live up to its goals.

It needs to be amended a few times over namely..

1. getting rid of electoral college
2. gender/ sexual orientation equality
3. voting rights
4. desegregation
5. health care and prevention against climate change as a right
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Sorry, but the whole "people are completely in charge of their fate" argument is and has always been garbage.

It's the usual FYGM conservative attitude. It's part of why they hated it when Obama said "you didn't build this". They're full of themselves & define paying taxes as a form of suffering.

I mostly just try to count my blessings & do my best to be a decent human being.
 
  • Like
Reactions: skooma

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,326
6,039
126
Again, I don't see how any of that conflicts with my statement. Can you give a specific example of a conflict?
No, nor did I intend to. When I said: "So one could say that the purpose of government is to preserve the right of people to express themselves on matters of reducing suffering as the communally understand that to be, how we self define, life, liberty and happiness.", I was saying in my words what I think you were also saying.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dank69

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,326
6,039
126
Our rights didn’t come from a magical man in the sky, they came from the fact that we created a government that protects them.

There is both truth and great danger in the way you put your opinion. You are basically expressing a very typically left brained and liberal rationally thought driven opinion that sadly adds a form of bias toward the sense of rightness as to from where the logical validity of the conclusions, their feeling of correctness, actually derives, the holistic, right brained instinctive pattern recognized nature of a truth that validity and vital nature of which can only be know with deep experience of existential questioning. Those inalienable truths do not flow from thinking, only the manner of their articulation. Their source is the same source from which the knowledge of the existence of God arises, the mystical, for lack of a better culturally recognizable revelation of the our true nature. Without that mediating potential, you can wind up justifying anything. Thought without the presence of love can lead to inner emptiness and contempt. Trump, for example, I am quite sure, feels he knows everything there is to know about rights and the purpose of government. It is this lack of voice, humility of being, that makes him a psychopath and I am sure he looks at himself as the best protector of rights that ever lived. Naturally, I realize you will probably reflexively fall back on reason as sufficient to the task, but I mention this anyway.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
It's the usual FYGM conservative attitude. It's part of why they hated it when Obama said "you didn't build this". They're full of themselves & define paying taxes as a form of suffering.

I mostly just try to count my blessings & do my best to be a decent human being.

As opposed to your “suffering” which consists of “I have food, housing, entertainment and and otherwise decent life but Bill Gates has more money than me”? Most of the world would love to be in the shoes of America’s poorest citizens and “suffer” under wealth inequality that means they live on $60/day instead of $2/day.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
35,203
28,217
136
As opposed to your “suffering” which consists of “I have food, housing, entertainment and and otherwise decent life but Bill Gates has more money than me”? Most of the world would love to be in the shoes of America’s poorest citizens and “suffer” under wealth inequality that means they live on $60/day instead of $2/day.
Again with this? There are lots of kids starving right here in America and many more unable to get proper healthcare. Why do you feel the need to pretend they are just ungrateful complainers?
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
As opposed to your “suffering” which consists of “I have food, housing, entertainment and and otherwise decent life but Bill Gates has more money than me”? Most of the world would love to be in the shoes of America’s poorest citizens and “suffer” under wealth inequality that means they live on $60/day instead of $2/day.

When I point out that you're full of yourself, you double down with self righteousness.
 

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,313
534
126
It needs to be amended a few times over namely..

1. getting rid of electoral college
2. gender/ sexual orientation equality
3. voting rights
4. desegregation
5. health care and prevention against climate change as a right
Reagan didn't need the electoral college to help him win like Trump, how did that all work out for you?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...ential_candidates_by_number_of_votes_received

And all those things just like identity politics don't mean shit if you forget the reason the democratic party that brought you about the changes that helped make America great up until the 1970s to early 1980s was because their foundation was the working class that were steadily climbing up the economic ladder until the rich first thru trickle down republicans like Reagan and later thru corporate democrats like Clinton, helped move that wealth up while the middle class eroded.

The moment the democrats threw the middle class under the bus, so they can eat at the corporate pig trough like the republicans it laid the groundwork for someone like Trump to capitalize on it.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,200
14,875
136
Reagan didn't need the electoral college to help him win like Trump, how did that all work out for you?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...ential_candidates_by_number_of_votes_received

And all those things just like identity politics don't mean shit if you forget the reason the democratic party that brought you about the changes that helped make America great up until the 1970s to early 1980s was because their foundation was the working class that were steadily climbing up the economic ladder until the rich first thru trickle down republicans like Reagan and later thru corporate democrats like Clinton, helped move that wealth up while the middle class eroded.

The moment the democrats threw the middle class under the bus, so they can eat at the corporate pig trough like the republicans it laid the groundwork for someone like Trump to capitalize on it.

Someone like trump? Who not only staffed his administration with the richest administration in history but whose policies have directly benefited the wealthy and negatively impacted the middle class? That trump? The guy who prides himself on cutting regulations that benefit corporations and once protected poor and middle class Americans? The guy who makes the best deal who has yet to come up with a winning deal, like the easy to win trade wars? The guy who is actively profiting off the American people and who is using government property to use in campaign ads? That guy?

As for Clinton, I'm guessing you didn't realize that Clinton saw the largest median household income gains in the 25-29 age group and the second highest gains in the 35-39 age group and the 45-49 age group was nearly flat as opposed to bush Sr and Jr whose median household income dropped. We also saw a decline in poverty of 22% more than it did under Regan. So I have no idea what the f you are talking about. Maybe you are referring to the wage gap which saw a huge increase under Clinton but I'd suspect that was mostly due to the dot com bonanza that was taking place as you see a huge drop in the gap after the dot com bust.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,265
126
I think the internet would run out of electrons before we stop dancing on the heads of pins and argue semantics.

Regardless, I think a legitimate (note "a") is to protect the weak from the powerful according to the laws that are hopefully independent from the influence of money and power. If a corporation or person seeks to cause harm to another in ways that are against those laws then those actions are stopped by what society deems reasonable means with justice served and restitution given as far as can be done.

We nor anyone else lives in such a place but IMO this is my 15 second philosophiy of government post. How such a thing can be effectively come to pass will consume part of the species thoughts until extinction.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
35,203
28,217
136
I think the internet would run out of electrons before we stop dancing on the heads of pins and argue semantics.

Regardless, I think a legitimate (note "a") is to protect the weak from the powerful according to the laws that are hopefully independent from the influence of money and power. If a corporation or person seeks to cause harm to another in ways that are against those laws then those actions are stopped by what society deems reasonable means with justice served and restitution given as far as can be done.

We nor anyone else lives in such a place but IMO this is my 15 second philosophiy of government post. How such a thing can be effectively come to pass will consume part of the species thoughts until extinction.
I agree, this is the primary role of government, as not protecting the weak from the powerful would lead to more suffering than anything else.

After thinking about it a bit more, I think I would change prevent to minimize, just to be absolutely clear. I would also add the caveat that the government should only step in when the suffering they are trying to minimize cannot be minimized by other means, but even that is technically outside the scope of this thread.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
I agree, this is the primary role of government, as not protecting the weak from the powerful would lead to more suffering than anything else.

After thinking about it a bit more, I think I would change prevent to minimize, just to be absolutely clear. I would also add the caveat that the government should only step in when the suffering they are trying to minimize cannot be minimized by other means, but even that is technically outside the scope of this thread.

How is this supposed to happen when we can't even agree on a common definition of "suffering'? Take one simple policy change for example, the recent rules by the CFPB which reined in payday lenders. These are people with poor credit who have no other sources of short-term lending, they can't just go to the bank and take out a $5k personal loan. Which is creating more "suffering," preventing them from being charged 36%APR interest on a payday loan? Or making those loans unavailable and the resulting consequence of that lack of funds (e.g. repossession of vehicle, eviction, inability to pay for needed home repairs like heating when it's below freezing, etc). Questions like this are why simple cookie cutter philosophies like "reduce suffering" are both idiotic and beloved of people who can't think beyond first order effects and their feels.
 

Sunburn74

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2009
5,025
2,593
136
I disagree with the statement as it doesn't define which system of ethics a government will follow in order to prevent suffering.

For example if you could eliminate all suffering for 90% of the population but in doing so would create intense suffering for 10%, should our government do that (the utilitarian view)? Or perhaps the government should be more absolute when it comes to suffering meaning only things that are given to all should be pursued ( it's suffering to not have access to something that others have access to for example healthcare . Should the government get it of the healthcare business if it can't provide it universally? Is some healthcare for a few worse than no healthcare at all?).

Ultimately the role of government is probably not about reducing suffering but rather creating a level playing field for it's citizens with commonly accepted and agreed upon fair rules for how to play the game of Life as a human being.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
35,203
28,217
136
How is this supposed to happen when we can't even agree on a common definition of "suffering'? Take one simple policy change for example, the recent rules by the CFPB which reined in payday lenders. These are people with poor credit who have no other sources of short-term lending, they can't just go to the bank and take out a $5k personal loan. Which is creating more "suffering," preventing them from being charged 36%APR interest on a payday loan? Or making those loans unavailable and the resulting consequence of that lack of funds (e.g. repossession of vehicle, eviction, inability to pay for needed home repairs like heating when it's below freezing, etc). Questions like this are why simple cookie cutter philosophies like "reduce suffering" are both idiotic and beloved of people who can't think beyond first order effects and their feels.
I'm not trying to reduce the complexity of government. I'm simply providing a litmus test for whether or not government should even pursue a policy.

I disagree with the statement as it doesn't define which system of ethics a government will follow in order to prevent suffering.

For example if you could eliminate all suffering for 90% of the population but in doing so would create intense suffering for 10%, should our government do that (the utilitarian view)? Or perhaps the government should be more absolute when it comes to suffering meaning only things that are given to all should be pursued ( it's suffering to not have access to something that others have access to for example healthcare . Should the government get it of the healthcare business if it can't provide it universally? Is some healthcare for a few worse than no healthcare at all?).

Ultimately the role of government is probably not about reducing suffering but rather creating a level playing field for it's citizens with commonly accepted and agreed upon fair rules for how to play the game of Life as a human being.
It is up to society to decide the system of ethics, and how we decide those things is outside the scope of this thread. All I am stating is that if our government is considering a policy, if the ultimate goal is not to reduce suffering, then it should not even be considered. Additionally, if we can objectively determine that a policy would overall cause more suffering instead of reducing suffering, then that policy is bad. So let's look at your statement to see if it passes the litmus test:

Creating a level playing field for it's citizens with commonly accepted and agreed upon fair rules for how to play the game of Life as a human being. Everything after "Creating a level playing field" is outside the scope, because we will always be arguing about what is fair. But that first part I think qualifies because creating a level playing field reduces the suffering of those at a disadvantage more than it increases the suffering of those who are losing their advantages.