Government and propaganda, a taste of things to come

[Genx87]

You have a far higher risk of being servant to private tyranny than governmet tyrrany. Guess what protects you from private tyranny? Look at kate 19th century conditions for an example of not recognizing this.

Where can private tyranny force me to do things at the end of a gun legally?

 

[victorm]

what differentiates the US from the regular banana republic is the thickness of the smokescreen.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You have a far higher risk of being servant to private tyranny than governmet tyrrany. Guess what protects you from private tyranny? Look at kate 19th century conditions for an example of not recognizing this.

Note that I've said that a legitimate role of government is the protection of rights for other.

However I will take exception to your govt. vs private tyranny.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Zedong

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin


Nevertheless, this isn't a simplistic POV where one has to choose which is good and which is evil. Safe working conditions are something that people should expect.

Where I have problems is when the "greater good" involves kicking people off their property because the government can get more taxation out of another use.

I have a problem when someone wants to build a monument, takes a million dollar property, then pays the smallest fraction for it.

We have someone here who is very pro government health care. He believes in the law alright, to the point that if a physician saves the life of someone and in doing so violates some regulation, that physician needs to be punished. He should have let the patient die.

That's how some view the government and it's authority. I oppose that kind of thinking.

 

[woolfe9999]

If I had meant that anarchy was preferable you would be able to find it. You won't be able too. Government is a necessary evil, and that's exactly why the Constitution is written as it was. "Unreasonable search and seizure" for example wasn't about protecting you from me, it was to explicitly mention that doing so was a right the government does not have.

The Founders were faced with creating something they knew could subvert their concept of freedom, and that's why the Bill of Rights exist. No wiggle room for tyrants.

The concept of "natural rights" is always debatable, but what is not is that no agency or power need approve my freedom of speech. It is a consequence of how humans communicate. Government didn't grant me that right, the Constitution exists to prevent it from being taken from me, and it exists to prevent it from being taken by others. That is it's purpose, and that needs to be remembered.

We are either masters or servants.

Clarification: I was not attempting to straw man your position as supporting anarchy. I was using the example of anarchy to clarify the role of government in relation to individual rights. Though I admit that might not have been clear.

Carry on.

- wolf