The Song Fight Bulletin Board

What do I think the job of government is?

Well thats quite easy really.
The government has only two funtions to perform:-

1. Protect the borders.

2. Ensure the rights of its citizens

That is it.


Of course that brings up the whole question of rights. What are 'rights'
Again this is easy, as long as you understand the difference between rights and privelidges. Im sure most here already do.

Everything else that a government does is over and above their job, and they shouldn't do it

Im not an American, however the founding fathers created the best form of government humans have come up with yet.

This is a great example of a government doing more than they should.

And as Hoblit has linked to, you see the slight creep of fascism. First its at work, now they talking about cars, tomorrow itll be in the streets, then hey, why not the whole hog and at home too.

Me$$iah wrote:Of course that brings up the whole question of rights. What are 'rights'
Again this is easy

You honestly think the world is that simple, don't you?

No.

I think it should be.
Id love to be all idealistic about this, however I have very little faith in people.
We're mostly to dumb to see the problem, or to apathetic to do anything about it. Democracy, police state, republic, whatever, as long as we dont have to think about it or do anything, Im sure it'll all be sweet.


Tell me Jefff, do you know the difference between rights and privelidges?
Is America a democracy?
What part of Denver are you from (no other reason than interest, my father lives in Denver. Ft Collins.)


I hate to be the conspiracy nut, but all the hallmarks of dictatorship are showing all round the free world. Everywhere is centralising power in to larger blocks, rights are being removed, new crimes are being created, fear is driving politics (with slogan type soundbites ruling the air) etc etc . Orwell (real name incidentally was Blair) may have indeed been a true visionary, the horrible future he saw may soon be upon us.
Unfortunaltey it seems that there are evil, power crazed lunatics running the 'game'. It sucks.

Still, we could all just keep our heads down, and we'll be alright. yeh?
Just go along and we'll get along, everything will be fine. I mean we all know the government are there purely for our own good and would never do anything to hurt us, right?



In a related vein here is a very interesting video for UK residents. Takes a while to get through the intros, but a worthy watch..

Me$$iah wrote: We're mostly to dumb to see the problem

heh. sorry. couldn't resist that one.

also, ft. collins isn't denver. it's about an hour north.

Of course I know the difference between rights and privileges, and I fail to see the relevance.

It's irritating to me that you have presumably read this thread, which is filled with lots of intelligent people disagreeing on all kinds of perceived rights, and you have the gall to declare that it's so simple to figure out what rights are that you don't even bother to explain yourself.

In fact, I would be surprised if you could name even one right that somebody here couldn't think of an exception to.

Me$$iah wrote:What do I think the job of government is?

Well thats quite easy really.
The government has only two funtions to perform:-

1. Protect the borders.

2. Ensure the rights of its citizens

That is it.

Generally I agree with that (though I would consider point 1. only a secondary function) - but what are rights?

I understand that US citizens have legislated rights, and I believe that the UK even recently gained a Bill of Rights (? is that right?). But I as an Australian citizen have no legislated rights. Your model isn't universal.

But lets just assume we are talking common law 'rights' not legislated ones - what happens when the right of one individual impedes the right of another individual? Like my right to consume a legal drug impeding your right to work in a safe environment because the delivery system of my legal drug pollutes your workspace? Surely there is a responsibility of the government here to try to use a legislative means to minimise harm to all parties - ie. legislate against free choice.

Caravan Ray wrote:

erik wrote:

Caravan Ray wrote: A 'definition' is the meaning of a word. You should look it up if you don't understand.

Like Government: the authoritative direction and restraint exercised over the actions of people in communities, societies and states..... (Macquarie Dictionary, 1999)

That definition fails to include the part where governments must legislate on matters of personal choice. Sorry, you lose. Keep trying though.

Government: the authoritative direction and restraint exercised over the actions of people

What is your definition of "lose"?
Don't bother keeping trying - you're not up to it.

Look, I'm aware that the definition you chose says that governments have the authority to control people's choices, but it doesn't say the degree to which governments should do this, and it doesn't say which personal choices governments should control. Clearly, if I choose to kill someone, most governments would restrict that choice, and most people would not think that was wrong. But governments don't control every action. To say that governments legislate on matters of personal choice is indeed correct, but unless one gets specific with exactly which matters of personal choice should be controlled and which should be not controlled, you end up with a government that leaves people unsatisfied, leaves people saying "Government SHOULD be like this..." One can state that governments control the actions of people and be correct, but a good government should be more specific about which actions it controls.

Caravan Ray wrote: I believe that the UK even recently gained a Bill of Rights (? is that right?).

If it is, no-one bothered to tell me.

jack wrote:ft. collins isn't denver. it's about an hour north.

Damn yeh. My old man keeps pulling me on that one, but I just cant get it out of my head that its like a suburb of or summat. He also works at a company to do with the airport in denver. That dont help me. hehe.

Jefff wrote:Of course I know the difference between rights and privileges, and I fail to see the relevance.

The relavance is obvious, if you dont understand your rights, you dont see them being taken. Or as is increasingly happening being changed to privelidges.

Jefff wrote: It's irritating to me that ... you have the gall to declare that it's so simple to figure out what rights are that you don't even bother to explain yourself.

Jefff wrote: In fact, I would be surprised if you could name even one right that somebody here couldn't think of an exception to.

OK Im sorry. Let me explain myself and give you an example all at once.

I own a piece of land. Lets call it my land. Do I have the right to walk all over my land. Yes, its mine, there is no higher authority to ask permission from, I decide. Its my land. That is a right I have.
Now you own the land next to my land, the shop is just the other side of your land. Do I have the right to walk across your land to the shop. No. Its not mine, its yours. Theres a higher authority I have to ask permission from in order to cross your land. You. If you say yes, then you have extended that privelidge to me. If you say no, then I have to walk round. I dont have the right, and youve denied me the privelidge.
Rights are derived from property.
Hows about that then.

The government is offered privelidges by the citizens in order to protect the rights of the citizens, however today its seems too often to be the reverse.

Caravan Ray wrote:Generally I agree with that

I accept your apology /colbert

Caravan Ray wrote: Like my right to consume a legal drug impeding your right to work in a safe environment because the delivery system of my legal drug pollutes your workspace? Surely there is a responsibility of the government here to try to use a legislative means to minimise harm to all parties - ie. legislate against free choice.

An excelent example.

But that is still not a government job. It would surely be up to the business owner to declare a no drug policy at work, thus ensuring a safe workplace for everyone. That isn't an infringement on anyones rights. The business owner is just that, the owner and is thus the higher authority with right to impose any rules he sees fit.During the hours of work an employee gives up certain freedoms (they offer the privelidge of tempoary ownership of their body, minds or both) in exchange for cash. The employees have the right to not work there.

Still not the job of government.

Me$$iah wrote:I own a piece of land. Lets call it my land. Do I have the right to walk all over my land. Yes, its mine, there is no higher authority to ask permission from, I decide. Its my land. That is a right I have.
Now you own the land next to my land, the shop is just the other side of your land. Do I have the right to walk across your land to the shop. No. Its not mine, its yours. Theres a higher authority I have to ask permission from in order to cross your land. You. If you say yes, then you have extended that privelidge to me. If you say no, then I have to walk round. I dont have the right, and youve denied me the privelidge.
Rights are derived from property.
Hows about that then.

Why are rights derived from property? From where do you derive your "right" to own land? From where do you derive your "right" to own property? Who gave you that "right". Are there minerals under your land? If so - in many countries I can gain permission from the owner of those minerals (not you), get a mining licence, go onto your land and dig those minerals up. You have no say in it.

What you think is a "right" to do what you want on "your" land is simply a privilege granted to you by a government which has made legislation which gives you some sort of title - in effect - legislation which prevents everybody else from making a free choice of walking over that bit of dirt.

Government makes legislation that impacts on free choice. That is what a government is for.

obscurity wrote:

Caravan Ray wrote: I believe that the UK even recently gained a Bill of Rights (? is that right?).

If it is, no-one bothered to tell me.

I wasn't sure - I had to Google.

There is Human Rights Act 1998
http://www.creators-not-consumers.co.uk ... rights.htm

It is a recent thing for you guys. Australia has no such thing. I'm really not sure if it is a good thing or not.

Me$$iah wrote:But that is still not a government job. It would surely be up to the business owner to declare a no drug policy at work, thus ensuring a safe workplace for everyone. That isn't an infringement on anyones rights. The business owner is just that, the owner and is thus the higher authority with right to impose any rules he sees fit.During the hours of work an employee gives up certain freedoms (they offer the privelidge of tempoary ownership of their body, minds or both) in exchange for cash. The employees have the right to not work there.

Still not the job of government.

You are effectively describing capitalism - which is ineffective in managing difficult-to-cost externalities. The classic example is (as I think I mentioned earler here) the Tragedy of the Commons, which is very well illustrated nowdays by anthropogenic climate change. The market will not fix climate change because the market does not cost atmospheric pollution. Only some sort of market regulation (ie. legislation against free choice) will make the market address climate change. Likewise, only some sort of market regulation (ie. legislation against free choice) will make the the business owner in your example address public health issues which have no immediate cost to him.

Also, your example assumes that all parties have adequate knowledge to accurately assess the risk they are placing themselves under and that the availability of employment is such that people actually have the freedom to pick and choose jobs as they please. Are you confident that all unskilled hospitalty workers would meet these criteria?

Oh, yeah, I knew about the human rights act, I just didn't mentally connect it with the phrase 'bill of rights', although of course that's exactly what it is. Of course, you can guarantee it'll be amended or repealed the moment it becomes too inconvenient (yeah, I know was enacted to implement the EU treaty, but we're not exactly shy about flouting EU conventions). I tend to think of a bill of rights as something more fundamental, something constitutional even (this comes from reading too much shit on the web that's written from an american perspective).

Personally, I think it's better to not specifically enumerate rights like that, as people could start to assume that you do not have the right to do something that is not specifically mentioned. Like the dickheads who use the 'it's not illegal!' argument to justify any selfish act they feel like committing.

Also, it turns my stomach to read the phrase 'for the protection of health or morals' listed in the exceptions so frequently. Who's morals, exactly? I can have privacy as long as I'm not doing something that some self-rightous, puritanical old coffin-dodger like Mary Whitehouse would disapprove of? Fuck that.

Me$$iah - C.Ray covered it pretty well. "Ownership" is granted to you by the government, and there are rules and conditions associated with it. The most obvious one is that if you gained that land by violating someone else's rights, you'll probably lose ownership.

But how about this? Let's say I'm sitting around on my plot of land. While I'm reading a book, you go around and purchase every bit of land that surrounds me. The only way for me to leave my plot is to travel through your land, but you won't let me.

Do I have a right not to be imprisoned? Does it overrule your right to keep me off of your land?

Jefff wrote:Let's say I'm sitting around on my plot of land. While I'm reading a book, you go around and purchase every bit of land that surrounds me. The only way for me to leave my plot is to travel through your land, but you won't let me. Do I have a right not to be imprisoned? Does it overrule your right to keep me off of your land?

I'm pretty sure at that point he removes you from the land, and then no one is on it.

Oh no, wait... that's Go.

Whew! It was so hard to get through this thread. I kept having the overwhelming urge to fall off the wagon and smoke. I recently quit, and it's at the point where seeing cigarettes in films or talking about them stirs up the urge.

California has had this ban for as long as I've been a "real" smoker (6 years). I think it's good to go outside for the smoke. I never smoked in my home either. I like the smoke outside.

What seems missing on this thread is just how delicious and wonderful smelling some people find tobacco. Growing up I ALWAYS loved the smell. I liked being around it and associate it with good times and wonderful concerts. It never made me feel yucky until I smoked a lot.

I should point out that as a real smoker I eventually gave myself asthma and once I quit the asthma went away also. But damn it I miss tobacco everyday, every commute, with every drink.

I think bars should have the choice on whether their establishment permits smoking or not. After all alcohol causes cancer as well. Don't we go to bars to poison ourselves? They really should have a nice smoking section with good ventilation at a bar for the smokers.

If we apply my personal experience to the 2nd hand smoke issue, I'd say it's crap. I was arguably a 2nd hand smoker for ages meanwhile being an athlete. I don't think it harmed me in the slightest, not like going to college in Riverside and breathing the worst air in the USA. Personal experience is bad science, the focus group is way too small.

While I believe the science that 2nd hand smoke increases risk of cancer, I wish they would give numbers instead of using words like "significantly" because that can mean anything.

Why haven't we ever seen waitresses or other people "forced" to breathe 2nd hand smoke wearing a filter over their mouth and nose at work? In Taipei the majority of the people there wear such as they drive around in their industrial air. I certainly wear such when I work with nasty solvents or gases.

I agree with most of the smoking bans, I still think you should at least be able to smoke outside.

What an interesting thread. First they take the cigarettes, and then the cars. Interesting connection:

I thought it might interest the more libertarian among you to find out that in the UK, smoking while driving is considered a contributory factor to driving without due care and attention. That's in your own car . Of course, that only applies to when you drive on roads that were built by the government. And as such, they own them, and have the right to decide how you behave if you want to use them, right?
Though, they did take the land for these roads from what was once either commonly owned land, or through compulsory purchase orders.
Wow. I really don't know which side of the argument to fight for.

I do worry though, that lots of hyper-tense chainsmokers deprived of nicotene on their 90 minute commutes is actually going to increase the dangers of driving on the road.

The net result is, if you are found smoking when you were involved in a crash, you've just made it a whole lot worse for yourself.

spinlock wrote:

The net result is, if you are found smoking when you were involved in a crash, you've just made it a whole lot worse for yourself.

Non smokers here in the States get lower insurgence rates. Of course everyone says they are non smokers.