The Proper Function Of Government

12/3/04

[pageonetoo]

Ezra Taft Benson was a former head of the Mormon Church. These folk have a wonderful social system, and take great care of the tithing members of their "stakes". He expounds quite well here, on Gum'ts role.

Unfortunately, The Mormons also believe there is more than one God, and that Jesus failed to accomplish His mission... As a Bible thumping evangelical, I strongly disagree with them.

Mormons are fiscal and social conservatives, but, IMO, their theology belongs in the "rat poison" category. 90% of its content is wholesome food, 10% is the active poison. You die when you partake of it, but never see it coming!

Jonestown was the site of the "kool aid" massacre... Also deadly to your health... Your choice of nom dujour is interesting!

Welcome to FreeRepublic...

[TChris]

Unfortunately, The Mormons also believe there is more than one God, and that Jesus failed to accomplish His mission... As a Bible thumping evangelical, I strongly disagree with them.

As a life-long and active member of the LDS Church, I have heard the "more than one God" accusation before, but I honestly have never heard the "Jesus failed..." bit. Whence cometh this nonsense?

[RightWhale]

The purpose of the state is not the same as the proper form of gov't. Gov't and state are different things. The proper form of gov't is a much wider topic with any number of political theorists sounding off. The purpose of the state has not been developed to any great extent.

[Beemnseven]

John Locke: -- "For nobody can transfer to another more power than he has in himself, and nobody has an absolute arbitrary power over himself, or over any other, to destroy his own life. . .

That's the only thing that gave me pause. Man has no power to destroy himself? Of course he does. He can point a gun in his mouth and pull the trigger. Of course, I think it was Locke who also believed that every man was entitled to a piece of land. When I have more time, I'll check up on that, but I'm pretty sure that was another of the disagreements I have with him.

[RightWhale]

That was part of a continuing debate about the characterists of ownership. Can a man own himself? The idea leads to a bookful of paradoxical statements.

[jonestown]

As I explained before, - I thought it would be interesting to see the reaction to a great conservative essay, without mentioning the authors name. -- The posting page allows that to be done, "without references".

What's the harm in posting a piece that stresses principle over politics and challenging others to debate the ideas, not the personalities?

jones

---

If you know who wrote it then you don't know whether they mean it or they are just 'preaching to the choir', making them hear what they want to hear.
60 Paul C. Jesup

---

Ezra Taft Benson was a former head of the Mormon Church.
Mormons are fiscal and social conservatives, but, IMO, their theology belongs in the "rat poison" category.
61 pageonetoo

---

You two are making my point.

It is interesting to see this type of reaction to a great conservative essay. Thanks.

[jonestown]

RightWhale wrote:
Is that your selection? The purpose of the State?

---

Sure it is. - Is there something wrong about discussing:
'The Proper Function Of Government'?
53 jonestown

---

The purpose of the state is not the same as the proper form of gov't. Gov't and state are different things. The proper form of gov't is a much wider topic with any number of political theorists sounding off. The purpose of the state has not been developed to any great extent.
63 RW

---

I think Benson did a great job in his essay in developing how the 'purpose of the state' should correlate with the 'proper role of government' in our Constitutional Republic.

[jonestown]

Does Locke think society has the power to stop a man from 'destroying his own life' through his own folly?
8 jones

---

John Locke:
-- "For nobody can transfer to another more power than he has in himself, and nobody has an absolute arbitrary power over himself, or over any other, to destroy his own life. . ."


That's the only thing that gave me pause.
Man has no power to destroy himself? Of course he does. He can point a gun in his mouth and pull the trigger. Of course, I think it was Locke who also believed that every man was entitled to a piece of land. When I have more time, I'll check up on that, but I'm pretty sure that was another of the disagreements I have with him.
64 Beemnseven

---

Probably, in order to understand the basis for Lockes 'destroy himself' concept, --- we would have to read several paragraphs of his comments before & after those words. -- Or, perhaps he was referring to the Catholic religious edict against suicide, as being a 'natural law' & a power of the State.

[pageonetoo]

What's the harm in posting a piece that stresses principle over politics and challenging others to debate the ideas, not the personalities? -jones

No harm, no foul! But, personality is a part of all discussion! A man is judged by his actions, not just his words.

The reason George W. Bush was re-elected is simple. Words, backed by George!

[RightWhale]

Benson did a great job

Any discussion of the topic?

[jonestown]

RightWhale wrote:
Is that your selection? The purpose of the State?

---

Sure it is. - Is there something wrong about discussing:
'The Proper Function Of Government'?
53 jonestown

---

The purpose of the state is not the same as the proper form of gov't. Gov't and state are different things.

The proper form of gov't is a much wider topic with any number of political theorists sounding off. The purpose of the state has not been developed to any great extent.
63 RW

---

In answer to your generalities; - I think Benson did a great job in his essay in developing how the 'purpose of the state' should correlate with the 'proper role of government' in our Constitutional Republic.
67 jones

---

Any discussion of the topic?
70 RW

---

Numerous people have raised interesting points on topic so far.

Do you have any?

[Fiddlstix]

Welcome to FR

[jonestown]

Bump for the thanks.

[Beemnseven]

Can a man own himself? The idea leads to a bookful of paradoxical statements.

I've always maintained, that if an individual does not 'own' him or herself, then who does? And if we don't own ourselves, doesn't that make all individuals slaves?

[RightWhale]

One problem: if a man does own himself, can he sell himself? Does hiring to do a job count, or it that short enough a contract that he is trading some of his time in return for doing some specific, limited work. If that is okay, can a man sell himself into permanent slavery, that is, alienate himself, maybe not in this country, but in some other country where slavery is still legal and we can probably guess a few of those.

[Beemnseven]

One problem: if a man does own himself, can he sell himself? Does hiring to do a job count. . .?

Well, I think you basically answered the question right there. Everyone who has a job is essentially "selling" him or herself and their abilities, talents and physical labor. The key difference is that they are doing so for their own self-interests, not through by any involuntary measures.

Since there are already laws that prohibit the "owning" of other human beings in bondage, one could technically offer him or herself up for sale as a slave, I suppose, but then, no one could "buy" them either.

[RightWhale]

It's a superficial answer and does not bear up to scrutiny. A follow-on question could be along the lines of what part of you is 'you'.