Part 1: Government
As warned, this is the first part in a series (I have 3 parts outlined thus far) on where we're at as a country in my opinion. This was originally just one post, but I kept expanding the concept and seeking clarity (as a good engineer does) and ended up with an outline to work from.
Of late, I have become increasingly frustrated by the continuous answer that government can solve our problems. Is that really what government is for?
The point of government is to provide structure for a civil society through the protection of basic (or natural) rights. Having grown up in the states, the Bill of Rights seems a reasonably fair start at a list of rights a government should protect. Other things that it seems reasonable for the government to provide is a fair and balanced system for the redress of grievances criminal and civil (Justice system), support of basic infrastructure (roads, sewer--see your local DPW), and a face to the world as a whole in foreign affairs including a military.
After those things, it's all gravy. Most of the institutions we now take for granted as part of government are relatively new even in our country; public education (1840's), income taxes (1913, 16th Amendment), social welfare (1930's) just to name a few. Most were outgrowths of movements started in local communities then states at the behest of the electorate to solve a pressing problem at the time.
Those things are alright I suppose, but detract from the ability to focus on the core mission of the government just like a focus on test scores seems to be hurting schools in the mission of educating students.
The government is not a tool for a minority or majority to force a given belief set on those who don't agree. There is a certain minimum standard that everyone can agree on defined as natural rights but that does not mean a complete belief set. What business does the government have in marriage? Or birth control? Or employment practices? So long as the practice of a person's beliefs is not harmful to others, physically or undeniably emotionally does the government need to be involved? In most cases, I don't think so. Besides that, in these areas, law becomes unenforceable without a police state to watch every move of the citizenry.
The other thing it is not is a replacement for responsibility on any level. Many of the problems we face today would be much less challenging if people took responsibility for what they do and were held to it. Violent video games made me kill that person. The gun dealer that sold me the gun made me able to shoot my lover. I'm on welfare because my education was poor. Balogna. All of those and many other lines we see in the news daily are failures of personal responsibility.
With those things in mind, the next post will relate to democracy in all its forms.
posted by Jake at
16:56
13 Comments:
Or employment practices?
I know what you meant by this, but what about labor laws & human rights violations?
I love capitalism as much as the next guy, but if everyone here agrees that you have pay a worker $6.75 USD/hr and people in China think it's cool to pay them $0.50 USD/hr and hire 9 year olds while their at it, shouldn't the government do something?
As for the intent of the comment, I'm on the fence. I agree that companies should be able to hire whomever they want, but at the same time afraid that will lead to serverly limited employment opportunities. Think about it, if any business owned/operated by a Christian refused to hire an athiest, where could I work? Would it be ok to blame my troubles on the lack of gov't intervention then?
(excellent post, btw)
p.s. You'd realized I'm an athiest by now, right? :-P
I beg your pardon Jake, but public education and social welfare managed by the government are NOT all right. they are a cancer infecting our society with a socialist mindset. It is NOT the government's responsibility to educate my child, it is mine. To have national standards is fine, to enforce them through economic bribery, the funds for which come out of my pocket with little or no say on my part as to how they are used is not.
The same goes for social(ist) programs such as welfare and medicaid. It is a wonderful thing to wish to help the less fortunate, but I don't think that someone else(the government in this case) should be able to pick MY pocket to do it.
Ooohh, discussion. As I said this is the first in a series, but here are some direct answers:
Barry: I don't disagree with fair employment practices. However, that is not in line with the core rights I listed but could certainly be considered one. I definitely see issues with allowing capitalism to run amuck, but the degree of control is the question.
Bel:I did not say I was thrilled with them, but, at present they exist. Welfare least of all. Public education is a fair concept, of late however, flawed in execution. More to come in the next post.
Just responding to your"Those things are alright I suppose" comment.
"What business does the government have in marriage?"
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/wm503.cfm and http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/netherlandsmarriage.cfm
Sorry to load you up with links, but I thought you might find the articles interesting.
Oh bleagh! The entire link didn't come through.
Let's try this
http://www.heritage.org/
Research/Family/
netherlandsmarriage.cfm
Education is a matter of the state because it serves the nation's interest to have an informed and educated populous.
This is why people without children are forced to support the schools - it is for the greater good. If schools were only funded by those who had children enrolled in them, education would be restricted to a privilege reserved for the wealthy.
If you're going to give people tax benefits for being married, you have to open the institution to everyone. Otherwise, you're discriminating based on relgious beliefs - kinda the opposite of what the Founding Fathers were aiming for.
Oh, and linking to the Heritage Foundation of all places? Yikes.
"Education is a matter of the state because it serves the nation's interest to have an informed and educated populous."
Yes, it does serve the country to have national educational standards. That does not relieve me, as a parent, of the responsibility to properly educate my child. Education should be funded on a local level, NOT by the federal government.
I believe that setting a standardized test at the national level for basic skills and knowledge is fine. Setting a national curriculum and bribing communities to adapt it is not. Much less when that curricula does not reflect the values of the community.
I know that we don't currently have a national curriculum, but it seems to me that we are but one small step away from it. I think that's a very bad idea.
Also, Barry,
Married people lobbied congress for those benefits.
Same sex couples are able to lobby congress for those benefits too. The legislative process is open to them.
I object to the proposition that they can just tag along on the coattails of marriage by attempting to redefine marriage so that it fits them. (Why don't we all just agree that the sky is green, that's pretty close to blue isn't it?)
Marriage may have strong support in the religious community, but that doesn't make it other than what it is, a legal contract between two people that they will only produce children with each other and that they will dedicate their assets to rearing those children. Same sex couples cannot, by definition, keep that contract, so they cannot be married.
So sorry you are offended by the link, but that was the easiest place to find an English translation of the articles. They are comments from scientists in the Netherlands about the effects of legalizing same sex marriage there a few years ago.
Of course they contain the most insidious of the three kinds of lies-statistics.
Since you profess to be Godless, you may prefer that all references be brought to you only from non-biased, non-religiously tainted sources. Good luck with that. I hear that the search for Nessie is really coming along too.
Starting out with an openly biased source can sometimes be a blessing. You know what the bias is so you don't have to go searching for it.
I don't want to turn Jake's blog into a comment war, but I will make a few closing remarks:
- Education *is* funded on a local level. And the state level. And the federal level. Do you have any idea how much it would cost the average parent if federal funding was removed? If you don't agree with public schools, put your child in a private institution.
- How can you impose federal standards for education without federal funding to meet those standards? That is the heart of the problem with the NCLB Act. You can't tell schools to meet expectations without providing them the tools to do so.
- How many states passed constitutional amendments barring same-sex marriage? How is that an open legislative process?
- Marriage as a matter of the state has never been solely about procreation. That is a religious ideal, nothing more.
- I wasn't offended by the link at all, I was disgusted. Why bother even conducting a study if you're only going to accept the findings if they agree with what you initially thought? That's not how statistical analysis is supposed to work.
- And yes, I do want unbiased, untainted research, but that has nothing to do with being "godless" as you put it. That has to do with being a man of science who seeks the truth in its most pure form. The church used to tell people the Sun revolved around the Earth until Galileo had the cojones to stand up to them. Too bad he didn't just ask the Heritage Foundation for the answer.
(and green actually borders blue on the electromagnetic spectrum, so yeah, it's pretty close)
Not turn it into a comment war? I thought that was the idea, to get folks commenting on your posts. I wasn't thinking of it as a war either, just some fun discussion. I hope I haven't offended you. We simply have different points of view and I find you delightful.
I homeschool so I do know how much it costs, and the government doesn't give me one penny. The logic behind saying if you set a standard you have to provide money to teach to that standard is appalling. Can you imagine if every job applicant could tell an employer to fund their college degree because one is required for a particular job?
Once again I say it isn't the government's responsibility to educate my child, it is MINE.
The legislative process is as open as it always has been. Those amendments didn't spring out of the paper they were written on, they went through the legislative process. Yes, it's difficult to change a constitutional amendment, but it can be done.
Marriage as a matter of the state has never been about procreation!? That's the entire point of marriage. Who gets your assets when you die? Who has a right to family assets and/or royal titles? Who has the financial responsibility to take care of your children if you die? It's maybe the easiest tool the state has to determine those things.
Ah yes, science, observable, measurable and repeatable. Statistics are the very devil's workshop are they not?
Unfortunately, man of science that you are, you must realize that refusing to look at data because you don't like whoever presented it to you or because you don't like what is included in it, is not exactly giving you an unbiased view now is it?
As far as green and blue go, the last time I checked pretty close does not mean equal or interchangeable. And if pretty close is good enough for you, may I say that Red is far closer to blue on the electromagnetic spectrum than radio waves so maybe red can be blue for you too.
I had a nice long post written up, but Blogger ate it.
I'll recap one point I was trying to make.
Marriage is not about reproduction. Nowhere on my marriage license does it mention procreation. Our vows spoke of sickness, health, richer, poorer and all that jazz, but no mention of kids.
If I die, my wife will get my stuff. If she dies, our estates will be divided as we have left instructions for. No mention of kids.
yet I will reap tax benefits nonetheless. Sounds fair to me.
Generally there's a "forsaking all others" bit in those vows. My opinion is that that's the important bit. Of course you may have left it out.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home