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…

The Root of Violent Extremism

We are too flippant about writing off violent extremists as "crazy", "psychopathic", etc.

Just because *we* have a hard time conceiving of doing violence to others, does not mean that those who do are insane.

Hitler was not insane. Hitler was evil. There is a distinction.

To be insane, to be "crazy", means you cannot understand the difference between right and wrong.

People like Hitler, like ISIS, these people are *evil*. They have, in what they believe to be a rational process, *chosen* to embrace a death-worshipping morality.

Such thinking is going to lead us down wrong alleys in dealing with violent political extremism.

Unless we understand the various reasons why such people embrace philosophies of death, we cannot combat the root causes and defeat violent extremism.

Obama's "they need jobs" is a juvenile approach at this. But you simply cannot ignore and dismiss the reality of life in the countries that are the flash-points of extremism…

Transparency needed in investigations of police

I have not sat on a grand jury any time in my life. I am disinclined, having not pored through records, nor listened to dozens of witnesses, to second-guess the difficult decisions these jurors have had to make.

HOWEVER. There is a clear problem of trust going on, and it stems from a couple different sources.

1) Grand Juries are usually secret. There are good reasons for this. Simply investigating whether a crime might have occurred, which is what Grand Juries do, collects a lot of evidence which could put people's lives at risk, or could be embarrassing. You want folks to feel free to talk. And you don't want the person being investigated to get unduly smeared.

However, the flip side of secrecy is that the lack of transparency can lead to a loss of trust. Clearly, in the two incidents discussed recently, many people who have no idea what went on in the GJ's or what evidence was presented, know, they just KNOW, an injustice was committed! And, because they have no opportun…