The government

[china]

Governments must exist as long as man is not a light to himself, as long as he does not live his daily life with order, care, diligently working, watching, learning. He would rather be told what to do. He has been told what to do by the ancients, by the priests, by the gurus, and he accepts their orders, their peculiar destructive disciplines as though they were gods on this earth, as though they knew all the implications of this extraordinarily complex life.But..... perhaps I,m wrong, Canadians are doing fine ....right?

 

[Tonington]

A government exists only to provide the greatest protection to the largest number of people. Your natural rights are given up to the government to give you that protection, without the social contract they provide, your safety as well as that of your family would be your own responsibility. It would be rather difficult to watch over your entire family all the time. That is what laws are meant to do. Granted they are not 100% effective, but I like it much better than escalating violence, a destructive principle of human nature. Someone harms me or my family, I come down on them with the righteous retribution that I see fit. Then the person or persons harmed by my actions escalate the situation.

The social contract is not static. It changes with the times, slowly, as it should.

 

[Sal]

Governments must exist as long as man is not a light to himself, as long as he does not live his daily life with order, care, diligently working, watching, learning. He would rather be told what to do. He has been told what to do by the ancients, by the priests, by the gurus, and he accepts their orders, their peculiar destructive disciplines as though they were gods on this earth, as though they knew all the implications of this extraordinarily complex life.But..... perhaps I,m wrong, Canadians are doing fine ....right?

Fine is a relative term.

Government should be for the people by the people. Ideally we work toward the government over-seeing the general welfare of the country, protecting it's people's rights and the natrual resources of the land. It should be mininally invasive in its control of the people both in it's own land and outside of it.

It is not the job of the government to intrude into the personal lives of it's people but laws must be made and abided by and enforced for the general good. Some people do need to be told what to do unless they can live by the creed "do not harm unto another".

I think Canda is the best country in the world to live in. We are not perfect, many improvements could be made but we are "fine" sure.

 

[china]

Sal

I think Canda is the best country in the world to live in. We are not perfect, many improvements could be made but we are "fine" sure.

That's your opinion though I know of hundreds of Canadians living outside of their country whose opinion would be different then yours.
Just curious ...where else have you lived ( not only visited) outside Canada and why is Canada "the very best place to live in"...just curious?

 

[china]

Tonigton.

Your natural rights are given up to the government to give you that protection, without the social contract they provide, your safety as well as that of your family would be your own responsibility.

I think dear Tonington you have given up more than just your "natural rights".
But that's just my opinion

 

[Sal]

SalThat's your opinion though I know of hundreds of Canadians living outside of their country whose opinion would be different then yours.
Just curious ...where else have you lived ( not only visited) outside Canada and why is Canada "the very best place to live in"...just curious?

I have only lived in Britian and that was years ago so doesn't really count. For me Canada is the best place to live because it has allowed me to build the life style which I currently enjoy. I am not rich but I am comfortable. I feel safe in my neighbourhood even at night. I have easy access to two universities. My city is clean and beautiful and full of nature trails and parks. I am free to believe and worship as I please. I love the people of this nation. I could list and list and list why I believe it to be so....for me. For Canadians living outside of Canada that do not appreciate this great nation I say good for them that they have found a place to live which is better suited to them.

I take it that you do not?

 

[Pangloss]

China:

Your OP was very close to an anarchist writer and thinker, John Woolstencraft (it's late and I think I spelled his name wrong).

He believed that we had to have government as long as we refused to grow up and take care of ourselves without the parent (state) taking care of us. He didn't want to overthrow the state - that would lead to chaos and eventually to rule by thugs.

He advocated every person take more and more responsibility for their own well being, and to act collectively as needed to take care of larger problems. This way the authority and necessity of the state would, in his words, "evaporate."

George Woodcock, a major player in anarchist thought and a PolSci prof at UBC, now deceased, also thought along those lines, pointing out the non-violent ouster of the Nazis in Norway, led by the civil disobedience of the teacher's union. He thought that strong autonomous individuals would spontaneously act in the best interest of themselves, their families, clans and country.

Nice post. Good thread.

Pangloss

 

[china]

Pangloss , thanks for the post.

He advocated every person take more and more responsibility for their own well being, and to act collectively as needed to take care of larger problems. This way the authority and necessity of the state would, in his words, "evaporate.

That would be a great system.
....and I think that the original Reform party was aiming in that direction. To scary for an average Canadian though .

 

[china]

I take it that you do not?

Thanks for the post ,I do like the country .The thread is about the government(s).

 

[Sal]

Thanks for the post ,I do like the country .The thread is about the government(s).

Yes, so what are your thoughts about it? We have every basic freedom if we wish it. All people are not equally responsible for their behaviour nor capable of making choices that do not harm others. Thus crime and punishment etc. What would you advocate?

Under this government system within Canada the average person can do well. Are you saying otherwise is what I am asking you?

 

[china]

Hi Sal,thanks for the post.

Under this government system within Canada the average person can do well. Are you saying otherwise is what I am asking you?

What I,m saying Sal is that for an average person Canada is a fine country.Personally I,m not an "average" person and doing "well" is just not good enough for me .

 

[Pangloss]

China,

No I don't think Reform was headed in that direction. They might have been (nominally) fiscal conservatives, but they were moral and social interventionists.

Can a law and order platform be said to be libertarian or anarchist? I think those are polar opposites. I'll offer a problematic example:

Reform believed in making abortions illegal, or at least much more difficult to get under highly restricted conditions. Leaving aside (please, let's leave aside) the politics/morality/whatever else issues surrounding abortion, here is a clear example of a party saying the state must tell us what we can and cannot do.

So on that one issue, you cannot make the case that Reform was trying to "evaporate" the state, to use Woolstencroft's term.

For the state to lose it's justification, individuals must grow up, radically so, and learn to assume responsibility for our own actions, and learn how to act collectively on an ad hoc basis only when needed, and only for as long as needed. Then the state becomes irrelevant. Is this possible?

Maybe, but not for a very long time. Can we work towards it? Well, sometimes we are - the expansion of our civil liberties bodes well for evidence of the slow maturation of the citizenry. Sadly, though we too often think of our rights and freedoms as permission to indulge in waste, sloth and narcissism, and to forget that with freedom to act as we choose, comes the obligation to act maturely and for the benefit of the common weal.

Pangloss

Ps: sorry for the length.

 

[china]

Pangloss You are correct ,thanks for your informative response to my post.

 

[darkbeaver]

Isn't it true that the individual exists only as a fraction of the collective? How can an individual think to override the collective, his/her source? I think that we live in the illusion of natural rights that nature does not grant, any rights are a function of the collective and have no substance without it. Isn't it true that the best way to ensure your individual privilages is to extend the same rights to your neighbours thereby strengthening the collective? If you go into the head office alone you'll get screwed everytime.

 

[Unforgiven]

Might makes right.

 

[darkbeaver]

Might makes right.

What makes might?:smile:

 

[Pangloss]

Darkbeaver:

You are mostly right (I think) on the whole individual/collective thing, while keeping in mind the obligation of the individual to think for themselves, act to do what they think is right, and accept the rewards/consequences for their actions.

Pangloss

 

[china]

darkbeaver

Isn't it true that the best way to ensure your individual privilages is to extend the same rights to your neighbours thereby strengthening the collective?

No ,it is not true.

If you go into the head office alone you'll get screwed everytime.

No my friend , I,...... AM the Head Office.

 

[darkbeaver]

darkbeaver

No ,it is not true.


No my friend , I,...... AM the Head Office.

I will review my entire history, maybe then my flaw will be revealed.:smile:

 

[iARTthere4iam]

Isn't it true that the individual exists only as a fraction of the collective? How can an individual think to override the collective, his/her source? I think that we live in the illusion of natural rights that nature does not grant, any rights are a function of the collective and have no substance without it. Isn't it true that the best way to ensure your individual privilages is to extend the same rights to your neighbours thereby strengthening the collective? If you go into the head office alone you'll get screwed everytime.

*shudder*You believe that you are only an extention of a collective? Do you ask everyone around you if you can do this or that? Are your wants and needs not important? All of the clubs and organisations I have belonged to that had any meaning to me are ones that I freely choose.