Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

Governments are self-contradictory

John Chamberlain, Longmont

Published February 14, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  

More Letters to the Editor

More stories »

It's a shame when someone gets so close the truth without quite reaching it.

Ari Armstrong ("Loading the dice against responsibility," Speakout, Jan. 18) scores many good points against Rocky Mountain News columnist Paul Campos, especially in explaining how government activism actually hurts the poor.

But he also writes, "Government can be effective when it sticks to protecting people's rights - that is, preventing crime and protecting people and their property from violence." The problem is that governments, in their current form, depend on taking people's property by violence for their very existence. They are self-contradictory. Their acts of theft (which are euphemized as "taxation") are considered crimes if anyone else does them.

Furthermore, modern governments prevent anyone else from competing against them within the same geographic area.

Governments performs many useful services, but they shouldn't be monopolies. Why would anyone support monopoly? Government should be a voluntary subscription service. Let's take "government by the consent of the governed" seriously!

Comments

  • February 14, 2008

    3:38 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    mrfxx writes:

    So, Mr. Chamberlain wants government to be "a voluntary subscription service". Let's see what that means. That means (among other things):
    1) no military - if the US is attacked, too bad
    2) no police force - if somebody robs or murders, too bad
    3) no fire departments - if your house gets hit by lightning, or the wiring is bad and goes up in flames, too bad
    3) no road systems at any level - let's all go out & buy offroad vehicles - and drive any way we want to, anyplace we want to; of course without road systems, railway systems, air systems, food & other goods would cost many times more than they do - but - what the heck - you'll have the money to pay for those goods (or will you)
    4) no public education - the US can fall even further behind the rest of the industrial countries -but heck - we'd have our own supply of cheap labor
    5)no "monitoring agencies" - China wants to send us poison in lieu of food or drugs, peachy; your employer wants to pay you less than minimum wage or foce you to work 20 hours/day, fine; builders want to use substandard materials that cause death, wonderful (greed is good, right)

    Mr. Chamberlain - I suggest you find a deserted island & start your own country & totally support yourself. I choose NOT to try to provide all the above for myself & my family & friends.

  • February 14, 2008

    7:15 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    becca00 writes:

    Another ultra-Libertarian, laissez-faire capitalist has crawled out of his hole.

  • February 14, 2008

    11:31 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    anderson writes:

    They're very much like religious fundamentalists. The market is God, Satan is government, and let no amount of reality interfere with "the truth"--their truth.

  • February 14, 2008

    12:37 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Ted_in_Vegas writes:

    Governments are, arguably, the only legitimate purveyors of force, the purpose of which is to enforce peace and stability. This has been the truth for millenia (Read: Hobbes, Locke, Rosseau, etc.). The difference that we have in republics like ours is that we also have come to expect our government to use its force to also enforce liberty, freedom and justice.

    Unforntunately, exercising force requires money so our governments then tax us to be able to pay for the exercising its force to establish peace, stability and liberty.

    That leaves us with two problems: 1) taxing our money for things other than those listed above and 2) how good of job the government is doing in exercising its authority, that we give it, to use that force.

    We're not doing well on either problem...

  • February 14, 2008

    12:48 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Achilles writes:

    I consulted Mr. Thomas Paine on the matter. This was his response:

    "SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.

    Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer."

  • February 14, 2008

    1:26 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    anderson writes:

    Ted, you are one of the fundamentalists. I hope reality never hits you in the ass when you aren't expecting it.

    John favors, I guess, anarchy. Nothing like taking statements from more than 200 years ago and offer them without context. It's a favorite technique of talk radio and web sites that speak only to the coverted.

  • February 14, 2008

    1:32 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Achilles writes:

    anderson,

    You can be much more effective if you pick apart arguments you disagree with instead of simply calling people "fundamentalists" and anarchists. Even if the technique is a favorite of talk radio, that does not mean it's wrong.

    Is there something specific in Mr. Paine's comment that you disagree with? Does the age of a comment automatically disqualify it? Should we throw away the Constitution? Is there no wisdom to be found in anything older than 200 years?

  • February 14, 2008

    2:55 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    anderson writes:

    John, it's perfectly legitimate to equate your position with anarchism (the absence of government)--the logical extension of what you put forth here. Do you favor anarchism or not?

    No, talk radio techniques don't prove anything is wrong--it's just a pretty good sign that someone is blowing smoke.

    You would have to give Paine's comment some context before applying it to the present subject--which you don't. I would have to know the context of his statement before agreeing or disagreeing. No the age of the statement doesn't disqualify, but it can call into question its relevance.

  • February 14, 2008

    3:04 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Achilles writes:

    anderson,

    I do not support anarchism and I never have. I am an ardent supporter of a federal government that adheres to the Constitution. I want the Constitution (rule of law) to be followed. You, on the other hand, would support any extra-constitutional program that supported your ideology. So, what does that make you?

    If you would like to know the context of Thomas Paine's comment, read Common Sense; it's all about rebelling against an overpowering, over-controlling, and abusive government.

  • February 14, 2008

    3:22 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Ted_in_Vegas writes:

    John_II: Anderson would have to get Common Sense before he could read it.

    BTW, Anderson, reality can't hit me in the rear because I face it every moment of every day. What's your excuse?

    BBTW - A little Etomology on the word "Fundamentalist". From Merriam-Webster's dictionary: "a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles". That doesn't sound to bad actually.

    Imagine, a Christian that holds to the basic principles of Christianity! If only there were more of those...

    Imagine, an American that holds to the basic principles of America (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness)! If only there were more of those...

    Questions to ponder:

    What do you call a lawyer that doesn't hold to the basic principles of the rule of law?............ A shyster.

    What do you call a doctor that doesn't hold to the basic principles of medicine?.............. A quack.

    What do you call an engineer that doesn't hold to the basic priniciples of physics?.............. An idiot.

    What do you call an American that doesn't hold to the basic principles of America, as set forth in the Declaration of Independce, Constitution of the US, and the Bill of Rights?............ A LIBERAL!

  • February 14, 2008

    3:23 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    anderson writes:

    The statement you posted above speaks anarchism to me. Why don't you take responsibility for what you post instead of just throwing it out there? An uncontextualized quote can mean just about anything to anybody.

    No, you have no more lock on the constitution or desire to follow it than I do. That's like saying you are more American or more patriotic than I am (a favorite dishonest argument of the right) You just want to cite it when it supports your particular postitons and ignore it otherwise.

    Let's see: John is FOR the constitution, but everyone else (including judges who don't see things just as he does) is AGAiNST the constitution. John understands the constitution, but the rest of us don't. Pretty simple. And false.

  • February 14, 2008

    3:28 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    anderson writes:

    What do you call someone who thinks half the world opposes him...SQUAWK! It's a talk radio parrot.

    Glad you could admit to your fundamentalist nature though, Ted. Some synonyms that go along with this are fixed, concrete, doctrinare, dogmatic, inflexible.

  • February 14, 2008

    4:24 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Achilles writes:

    "No, you have no more lock on the constitution or desire to follow it than I do. That's like saying you are more American or more patriotic than I am"

    No it isn't. I did not question your patriotism. I question your understanding of our Constitution.

    For example, I bet you are an avid supported of the Dept. of Education, Social Security, MediCare, MedicAid, and universal health care. Can you tell me where in the Constitution the authorization for those programs exists? Can you explain to me what the 10th Amendment is?

    Also, can you quote a single statement I have made that supported anarchy?

  • February 14, 2008

    4:46 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    anderson writes:

    John, dishonest as ever. You posted Paine's anti-government screed, now say like a spoiled child feigning innocence ask: "When did I say anything that supported anarchy?" In other words, the arguments you post are good so long as they support your view. When they don't or might have unintended meanings, you won't take responsibility for them.

    I didn't say you said I was unpatriotic. But that's like you to purposefully mispresent my statement. Your way, I suppose, of throwing chaff in the air.

    Dishonest John, like I said, you are the only one who understands and wants to follow the constitution. Why ask me for an opinion? or anyone else's for that matter? You have all the answers. Stop sniveling and begging for attention.

  • February 14, 2008

    4:58 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Achilles writes:

    anderson,

    I merely posted an insightful quote from Thomas Paine. Perhaps if you had read Common Sense you would understand the context. But, even without having read Common Sense, you should be able to realize that the quote is not a call for anarchy but a realization that government is a necessary evil. His ultimate point is that we need government, just not an abusive and overbearing one.

    You are the first person I have ever heard refer to Thomas Paine as an anarchist.

    Please try to spend more time thinking before you write. You (and jay) seem to be on automatic mode when it comes to opposing anything Ted or I say. You've actually gone so far as to call Thomas Paine, a great patriot who fought in the revolution, an anarchist. Take a breath, think, think some more, write your response, then read it over, question it, then erase it, think again, write your response, read it over, then post it.