What Is Government Supposed To Do?

11/28/2018 | MosesKnows

[MosesKnows]

What Is Government Supposed To Do

---

Questions can expand political discussions beyond the topic discussed.

The topic in this case was what the government is supposed to do about asset forfeiture corruption.

Remove the topic from the question and simply ask, what is the government supposed to do? The thoughtful answer is that the government is only supposed to do one thing. Protect our rights.

The founders gave government only enough legislative powers to protect us and our property.

I know that doesn’t address asset forfeiture corruption but it does illustrate that the founders didn’t grant government legislative powers to feed us, clothe us, shelter us, or educate us, only to protect our rights.

[Telepathic Intruder]

I said “if”. Maybe I misunderstood your point in #15. What exactly is it?

[papertyger]

My point is social credit marginalizes people from public life without any laws being broken, either by the marginalized or the marginalizing.

There is no precedent for this state of affairs in the Constitution, but surely the government must assume authority to curtail the practice or the nation will be destroyed by its own citizens.

[Telepathic Intruder]

If there's no law against it, then there is nothing the government should do about it. It's either that, or welcome to the slippery slope. It's not a perfect world.

It's like I say to the gun control people. What's better, a public without guns, or government having all the guns? Of course, those types will usually choose the latter, but they apparently don't know what government is capable of. A few wrongful deaths per year by private gun owners is better than a lot of them by an out of control government.

"At best, government is a necessary evil. A worst, an intolerable one".

[Telepathic Intruder]

A public with guns, I mean.

[TruthInThoughtWordAndDeed]

Only that which we cannot do for ourselves.

And then, only that which we, the people, have given it permission to do as written in our Constitution.

[papertyger]

If there's no law against it, then there is nothing the government should do about it. It's either that, or welcome to the slippery slope. It's not a perfect world.

But there IS a law against your prescribed remedy. So your choices are expand government authority to regulate things like Facebook, Twitter, and other weaponized "social" mechanism, or ignore the law and bring your own judgement (and punishment) against those who have committed no, as yet, legally codified crime.

You can't have it both ways, because as you say, it's not a perfect world.

[Telepathic Intruder]

Actually you’re the one who said “the government must assume authority to curtail the practice” where no laws have been broken (see #22). I’m just saying if the government needs to stop a particular practice, there should be a law against it. Otherwise, what checks are there to ensure the government won’t stop you from doing that is legally your right to do?

[papertyger]

Otherwise, what checks are there to ensure the government won’t stop you from doing that is legally your right to do?

Are you actually advocating a social credit system imposed on citizens by de facto ideological cartels with no possible redress for those citizens if that redress comes from government?

[Telepathic Intruder]

I’m not advocating a social credit system at all. But I wouldn’t grant a “redress” of grievances where no law has been broken. If there needs to be a law, then make one. Legislators can do that.