What Government Is
Nov 7th, 2007 by Micah Tillman | 9 Comments |
Talking about definitions, I have one of which I’m particularly fond:
Government is the group with the biggest guns.
When I hear about how the government is going to do something other than kill people, or keep people from killing people by threatening to kill the first people, I get confused.
How are you going to feed the poor with your guns?
How are you going to define marriage with your guns?
How are you going to make people better with your guns?
Guns have one function: to shoot things. And that gives them a secondary function: scaring people who are afraid of getting shot.
I prefer my poor to be helped by charities, my marriages to be defined by churches, and my people to be made better by doctors (or ethicists). Guns weren’t really built for any of that, and so it isn’t the group-whose-primary-tool-is-the-gun’s place to do any of that.
| Stumble It! 
| Digg This!
| Add to del.icio.us! 
| Reddit? 
|
Clearly, you underestimate the usefulness of guns.
And yet, I still agree with you.
You could put attachments on the end of them, I guess.
Exactly. The govenment function bests when it sticks to defending the innocent and punishing the guilty. It can a do a few other things pretty well–but only a few.
Guns are one of coolest things ever invented and then someone says they are the worst things ever invented. But then again Mr. Nobel has a peace prize named after him and what did he invent again? If man hadn’t invented the gun he would have invented something else to kill another person. But I do agree on the government thing.
Once someone invented projectile weapons, there was no going back, in a sense. To be able to hurt something without actually “being there” introduces a new kind of power into the world that can’t be held in check by the kinds of power that came before.
Reminds me of calls for universal nuclear disarmament. How would such disarmament be enforced? Give all the nukes to the UN was what I heard somebody propose. Well that’s not universal disarmament then is it?
Though this “being able to hurt while not being there” thing becomes a limitation if your weapon requires you to not be there. That’s what makes suicide bombers so much more difficult to stop. They don’t have to “absent themselves” before setting off the bomb.
I’m not entirely sure what I’m talking about now. Sorry.
The initial duties of the US government were to handle foreign policies, money, and to ensure the security of the nation as a whole. What it cannot do is outlined in the Constitution. Everything else is left to the people and the states.
The government has no business telling you who you can marry, whether or not you can own a gun, and where you’re allowed to travel.
Everything that this government has been doing outside of the Constitution is for all purposes illegal and considered treason.
The Constitution does seem rather clear on those points! Well said.
[...] Does anybody know what the definition of “fair” is? (speaking of definitions . . [...]
Dianarn, good points. I’d like to add a couple of clarifying points, though:
1) You are talking about the national government. States and local governments are not prohibited from regulating the things you mentioned and other things, if they decide to, and they do now.
2) The regulation of these things could be a function of the national government if the Constitution were amended to allow it.
I’m not advocating for or against any of these measures, just trying to make things perfectly clear and thorough.