Skip to main content

Is Government "just the name we give to things we do together"?

"Government is just the name we give to the things we do together."
Well, no. This is a truly deceptive statement.
Because look here, there are many, many human institutions where people get together to do things.
Churches.
Clubs.
Corporations.
Non-profits.
Families.
And these all have their own unique characteristics.
If government was simply a variety of these, or vice-versa, why would we bother to have a unique word for it?
If government were *merely* a charity, wouldn't we just call it a charity?
What is it about government then that makes it unique?
I'll tell you. It's the use of force. Government is the sole human institution that legitimately exercises physical force against others.
Churches don't commit violence. Corporations don't use physical coercion to get you to buy their products or to work for them. Families don't (shouldn't) do that.
BECAUSE government's essence is the use of force, government simply should not do many things, even if those things would be right and proper for individuals to do.
Take your church. It's morally fine for your church to persuade you to donate, and for you to donate.
But now add the element of force. It would be morally wrong and abhorrent for government to FORCE you to give money to a church, whether through taxes, or a more direct approach of coming and taking your property under threat, for instance.
You see? Many actions that are acceptable and moral when done voluntarily, become immoral when you force people to do them.
So people who say "government is just the things we do together" are actually trying to obliterate that very, very important distinction. They are trying to get you to accept the routine, everyday use of force and violence. They are trying to obliterate the difference between persuasion and coercion.
They are trying to get you to accept that government ought to be able to do anything, to anyone, and use force to do it. Yet that way lies tragedy.
Don't fall for it.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Murder in the US

In 2011, I calculate the overall US murder rate as 4.6 per 100,000 population.

But if you recalculate this, and assumed that black men murdered at the same rate as everyone else, the overall rate would drop to 1.9 out of 100,000 population. That would give the United States the 147th highest murder rate in the world - or, the 60th best.

The insane disproportionate murder rate among US blacks is why the overall US murder rate seems so high.

I don't understand why liberals refuse to talk about this. I don't understand why blacks refuse to talk about this. Blacks are just as often the victim as the offender - almost SIXTY PERCENT of murder victims in the US are black. Shouldn't they care about this? Where are Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to talk about this? Yet they are silent.

And it's not like this is any secret. This culture of violence, abuse of women, and plain thuggery is paraded around daily in pop music. It's glorified on TV shows like "The Wire…

Millennials don't understand free speech

A response to this article by a (presumably) Millennial telling "other generations" how we've got it all wrong. I guess, how we all need to be nice and considerate and stuff..


Well-done. You've managed to publicly pat yourself on the back for your great moral wisdom - stuff the rest of human race has been aware of and done for hundreds if not thousands of years.

This article exhibits typical Millennial fallacies:
a) complete ignorance of history and human nature
b) feeling superior for believing the right things - things you read on the internet - and which you believe you invented.
c) condescending arrogance

PC is NOT as you described. PC is in fact about restricting free speech. The whole point of free speech, the reason it is protected? If people only ever said unoffensive things, well, there would be no need to protect that, would there? Nobody would object to unoffensive speech.

It is precisely those words and ideas that cause discomfort - often to entrenc…

Death rates: Britain's Health System more dangerous than America's Guns

So, the socialists love British socialized health care and the British ban on guns.

So let's see what that means in reality eh?

In 2010:
UK: 157275 cancer deaths
UK cancer death rate: .2489%

US: 569490 cancer deaths
US cancer death rate: .1844%

The US has a dramatically lower death rate from cancer, because the US (somewhat) private health care system does a better job of treating, managing, and curing cancer than does the British system.

If the UK had America's superior cancer death rate, that is 40,734 more Britons who would have survived 2010. That's a 0.06% rate of death by socialized medicine.

Compare to the roughly 16,000 Americans who were murdered by a firearm - a 0.005% chance.

So, the British are 10 times more likely to die of socialized medicine, than an American is of a gunshot.


http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@nho/documents/document/acspc-024113.pdf
http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/cancerstats/mortality/uk-cancer-mortality-statistics