Rights and Purposes of Government

(I wrote this in a very short amount of time, so please excuse any errors when it comes to grammar or spelling, this is just an essay I wrote for fun.)
Many people might wonder, why does the government run as it does, and what are the rights and purposes of government. In this election we’ve seen three main candidates, one whom many see as someone trying to completely revolutionize the government, this man would be Bernie Sanders, an avid supporter of Democratic Socialism. He has run under the ticket of the Democratic party. Many of his supporters have said that Socialism isn’t even that big of a change, that the Military or things such as Public Schooling are all socialist principles. Then one might wonder, what are the legitimate purposes of Government. Thus this essay has been contrived to speak of the rights and purposes of Government, as stated in the Constitution. The topics addressed will be as follows, The Affordable Health Care bill, What should and shouldn’t a government provide, and the right of Government when it comes to topics such as gun rights and freedom of speech.


The Affordable Health Care bill is commonly known as ObamaCare. It is a socialist program that is supposed to provide free or affordable health care to struggling citizens. While admirable and the idea is no doubt in the right direction, it is simply wrong. The biggest issue is it's un-constitutional. It creates dependency on the government, as the poor now depend on the government for health care and this dependency grows, as dependency grows so does tyranny. Any government which creates dependency at the same time creates oppression, oppression of lack of opportunity. If you stop giving man a reason to work, you deprive him of his potential and ability. While it strips man of his ability to improve, dependency on a state also increases its power over its citizens. When a state creates dependency it eliminates the idea that it governs out of the consent of the governed, it governs because the people need to be governed, thus the government is a government out of necessity not out of choice.


The Constitution provides a clear picture of what are the rights of the government and what it should fund and what it should not. The preamble provides a clear picture of the purpose of governments. Socialists will say that we have accepted some socialist principles and that the Military and Public Schools are already socialist programs which we have enacted. While true, these are two programs that are a necessity for a country to establish and maintain. For a country to be able to make technological advancements, its inhabitants must be well educated and literate. For a country to preserve itself and its citizens its uses tax dollars to fund an army which is to only be used for the protection of its citizens. These two programs are necessary for any government to truly be successful and are not just socialist programs and they certainly do not constitute a full change to Socialism. Socialism is inefficient. It allows for the government to take too much of a role in the day-to-day lives of its citizens. Socialism also creates an inefficient bureaucracy. To put it simply, when citizens manage their own lives, they’re much more successful than the bureaucrats in Washington. As Ronald Reagan said”The nine most terrifying words in the english language are, I'm from the government and I'm here to help”



Now, one of the biggest issues is that of Guns, it is clearly stated in the second amendment that one should have the right to own and bear arms. Now though, because of tragedies such as Sandy Hook, people seek to take away guns away from law abiding citizens and to restrict gun ownership. The sad thing is, a lot of members of the Democratic party, even the President himself agree with this. It is wrong for any government to take guns away from its citizens, a leader who disarms his citizens for any reason is not a leader, he is a dictator. While I believe they want to do this for the best of reasons, if at any point the states infringes on rights directly stated in the constitution, especially that of guns, it is tyrannical. Even though it could be to prevent more deaths, or decrease violence, is it tyrannical, as it opens up future generations to tyranny.



The Rights and Purposes of Government are simple,to protect the rights and freedoms of its people,this is outlined very well in the Constitution, so well that I believe that while every amendment is up for interpretation, they do not need to be changed but only followed and enforced by the Government.

 

I'm not sure how you transitioned from this idea of socialistic policies to gun control in one post + this post does not refer to the purpose of government, it refers to the U.S. government.

The U.S. is ridden with socialistic policies and while people love to grab onto the school system, the U.S. subsidizes the hell out of corporate America. Your causal jumps lack proof or even reasoning you cannot simply state well since individuals are dependent -> the government becomes tyrannous. Why is this a link? Why is something simply wrong? Why is it unconstitutional? There is absolutely no reasoning behind this and implying stating it does not make it fact.

The U.S. constitution is not nearly as clear-cut as you attempt to make it and there is a reason there are constitutional scholars. The second amendment makes no reference to individual citizens and was NEVER applied to a citizen's ability to own a gun until a 2009 Heller supreme court case. You are also oversimplifying gun control. There is a difference between regulation and outright banning of guns which neither Obama or Clinton support.

Ronald Reagan was a U.S. President whom committed treason and broke international law, he is not some all-knowing seer.

Your logic on gun control is flawed. Under your logic, a multitude of countries (i.e. Australia) are dictatorships. A dictatorship has nothing to do with gun control and while you may attempt to link them, dictators are focused on a consolidated rule via themselves or their group without open elections. If a demos votes for gun removal and it is passed by a majority, how is this a dictoral decision? Under your logic, the removal of guns constitutes an authoritarian state.

Tyrannical actions does not equal a tyrannical state and the likes of Hobbes believed a Sovereign could take control of a situation and blur such lines in times of crisis.

The amendments of that constitution are just that, amendments. They are able to be edited and removed. There is no reason to let a 200+ year old document dictate every facet of ones' life.

The rights and purposes of government are open to translation. A libertarian is going to have a very different outlook on the purpose of a government than a marxist.

 

Bump.

I'm interested in responses to this

What if rights are transferred from an individual to the government? I suppose the same rights are still possed, but the individual no longer has the power to express those rights.

 

Hang on, Obamacare is absolutely not socialist, and I say that as a socialist myself.

Obamacare is not unconstitutional.

Dependency doesn't automatically translate into tyranny. We depend on the government for military protection, yet I don't feel tyrannized. At any rate, Obamacare doesn't create dependency at all. It's basically a mandate saying that you must purchase health insurance, or face a fine. No dependence on the government required.

Socialism doesn't necessitate bureaucracy, you haven't defined what "too much of a rule in the day-to-day lives of its citizens" means, and speaking as somebody working in the financial services industry, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help" are extremely reassuring.

This is simply not correct. They seek controls over purchasing guns, such as background checks, waiting periods, etc. This does not infringe the right to bear arms, and it absolutely does not "take guns away" from people.

 

Before we go around saying what is and isn't socialism, let's define our terms.
so·cial·ism
noun

1. a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Obamacare isn't socialist. The purpose of it, as a whole, is to provide health insurance to people who cannot afford it. However, in the process of doing so, he's also forcing people to buy health insurance even if they don't need it. Yes, it's wrong, but no it isn't socialist.

Obama himself is not a socialist. He is a threat to/enemy of capitalism because he wants politicians to make the decisions about our economy.

You're right, that doesn't infringe on people's rights to bear arms. However, is that what they really seek? California is going to place a ban on the AR-15 as of 2017, which is infringing on the people's rights to own a certain type of semi-auto weapon, just because it is the "preferred" weapon of these mass shooters. Would you say this infringes on our rights to own and bear arms?

 

I don't believe that it's wrong. The idea behind it is that everybody needs health insurance, even those who are young and healthy. I believe that it's misguided, that a single-payer system would benefit us more, but it's helping to some degree at least.

He's definitely not a socialist, I remember several prominent socialists affirming that he wasn't one when he first ran for the presidency. He's not a threat to capitalism, though, he's a centrist democrat, and the democratic party is a capitalist party.

I agree with you here, since "arms" is usually interpreted as "light infantry weapons", that would indeed be an infringement. It might even get struck down by the Supreme Court. It's also particularly stupid because the AR-15 is no different to any other semi-automatic rifle, it just has a worse reputation and happens to look like an assault rifle.

 

=
The worst part about the ban is that a majority of murders (about 60%) are committed by handguns, but the moment that a mass shooting happens by an assault rifle, everyone sees it a being a killing machine.

He's not a threat to capitalism per se, he's a threat to the free market because he wants politicians to make decisions about our economy.

 

It's absolutely ridiculous. There are even stories of people killing similar numbers of people with knives, but we're sure as shit not going to make sharp objects illegal!

But all government interferes with the free market in some way. Where do you draw the line?

 

They don't interfere directly by setting prices and regulations, their interference is highlighted with subsidies. I'd draw the line at the government directly setting prices and interfering with business practices carried out by big companies.

Exactly. It's all about this false sense of reassurance that politicians and people are trying to conjure up.

 

Why draw the line there? Is there specific criteria you use?

 

Grabbing at statistics is pointless if they're used in a context other than their original purpose. Handguns are easier to purchase and easier to conceal so why would they not be utilized at a higher rate?

Assault rifles come into play due to their effectiveness on large groups of people opposed to handguns. Alongside this, there is a psychological factor paired with mass shootings opposed to the stereotypical murder of a drug dealer and so forth.

Effectiveness plays a part and an exceptionary stabbing contrasts greatly against a mass killing. Also, I haven't heard of a stabbing that rivals a larger mass killing (in deaths). Stab wounds are easier to survive and take much more time and effort on the perpetrators part.

 

I know I'm not Felix, but assault rifles aren't being used in shootings. Assault rifles are rifles that have the capacity to switch from semi-automatic fire (one bullet per trigger pull) to automatic fire (hold down the trigger for a stream of bullets). Something like an AR-15 is no different to a hunting rifle in terms of accuracy, and no different to a handgun in terms of firing capacity.

That's a fair point, but the only way to stop that would be to make every semi-automatic weapon illegal. Even then, you'd have bolt-action rifles, shotguns, single-action revolvers, etc.

 

Ronald Reagan was convicted of treason..? Geez I never heard about that. You shouldn't pepper the truth with your opinions, it devalues your argument. If you're going to, you should do it more subtly. Reagan orchestrated the largest reallocation of wealth in American history, (trickle down economics aka Reaganomics), but he was never tried or convicted of treason.

 

To be fair, he never said that he was convicted of treason, he said that he committed treason.

Though I do agree that he did orchestrate the massive redistribution of wealth into the ultra-rich.

 

Well he's claiming that Ronald Reagan committed treason and provided zero evidence or source.... cmon

 

Never said convicted as Shredder pointed out; rather he allowed (implicitly or due to ignorance) the Iran-Contra affair to occur, effectively funding the Contras after Congress ordered U.S. funding to cease. Oliver North took the fall and there is plenty of disagreement on whether Reagan knew and if he did not explicitly know, he ordered it via "do whatever is necessary."

Iran-Contra is hardly a small affair so I assumed individuals would get the reference; however, treason only comes with if Reagan was actually aware (as I imagine he was). Either way, U.S. policy towards Nicaragua was taken as a joke in the U.S. while it decimated the lives of those in Nicaragua (not counting U.S. activities in the rest of the hemisphere); furthermore, he openly mocked international law through statements retaining to information such as: not being in Nicaragua due to that being against international law and the Iran-Contra affair shows the disregard.

The U.S. was later sued by Nicaragua

International Court of Justice
Nicaragua v. United States - Wikipedia