What does a government have a right to do.

[Sétanta]

No, this isn't going to be a long, worthless essay that nobody reads (well it might be by the time I'm done writing this, actually, it probably will be), but rather a simple discussion on what a government has the right to do.

The underlying issue is whether a government has the moral right to interfere with it's citizens rights, be that abortion, gay marriage, taxes, basically any law that restricts the rights of what a person can or cannot do (and I'm not talking about murder or theft, those aren't rights, as they affect other people). Does a government have a right to tell homosexual men they cannot be married?

I know I have a reputation for being adamantly opposed to gay marriage and abortion, and truth is I still am, but I am starting to believe that the government of no nation has the right to restrict the rights of it's citizens. It exists to protect from enemies, foreign and domestic, and provide some basic services to insure that citizens are protected. Gay men aren't going to hurt anybody just by being gay. Thus, I feel that the government has no right to control marriage at all, much less restrict who can and cannot be married. Either two people, living together of any gender get the same tax status as every other two person couple living together legally, or nobody gets tax status based on marital status at all. Marriage is just another thing that government hijacked, and although I am opposed to homosexuality, I feel that the government is more wrong that homosexuals with regards to marriage rights.

This is not about equality, but about freedom. Freedom comes first, but with true freedom comes true equality.

Thus my question is what does a government have the right to do? What should it do for its citizens, and what should it not do?

Should people have to pay taxes if they don't use any services that taxes pay for?

[MasterOfNone]

These are good thoughts and some I have asked myself.

The powers a government employs fall, imho, into potentially two categories:

1. Unjust powers
2. Just powers

Just Powers are those things a government may do because the people have A. that right within them to begin with and B. have delegated that power to government. This sort of government sees rights as being inherent and inalienable within each individual. It is limited and bound.

Unjust powers are powers assumed by government that have not been delegated by the people or that do not even justly exist in the people in the first place. This sort of government sees "rights" (though the term is misused here) as originating in government or as being social constructs. It often grows and seeps into every aspect of life due to its unbound nature.

So just governments derive their just powers from the governed. What binds the individual to moral action also binds the government, because it is the servant of the creator (the people) and cannot therefore have more numerous powers than the ones who created it.

A simple and short flash animation called "the philosophy of liberty" sums up this idea:

http://philosophyofliberty.blogspot.com/ (scroll down a little on that page for the youtube vid)

But what of the problem where rights conflict? The above very-libertarian is great as far as it goes and I believe provides a brilliant foundation for any free government - but it does not take into account those who may wish to live by "higher laws" (or "moral laws").

For example, a group of people may wish to form a community where there is no gambling. Now, clearly two individuals (or more) can gamble their own money away under the philosophy of liberty. It does not violate anyone's rights for them to do so. But a person also has the right to live in an environment where they feel harmful and/or addictive practices - wel, basically anything they feel uncomfortable with - is not in their face. So how is this resolved? I believe the original US Constitution tried to address this aspect. The answer is based in another principle of just socieites and governments:

The contract or compact - the right to exercise one's right to contract about one's own affairs whether in business or in governments.

In other words, a person can justly be punished for gambling if he violates a contractual agreement or understanding. The way in which this would work, and it includes the matter of taxation too, is covered in Joel Skousen's excellent (though rather long!) work on the Philosophy of Law and Government which can be read here: http://www.joelskousen.com/Philosophy/philosophy.html

Someone once said that law is about the protection of property and everything else is about policy - and policy requires consent. There is much truth in that I feel.

MasterOfNone
(a socially conservative libertarian republican constitutionalist)

[Nikephoros II Phokas]

No, this isn't going to be a long, worthless essay that nobody reads (well it might be by the time I'm done writing this, actually, it probably will be), but rather a simple discussion on what a government has the right to do.

The underlying issue is whether a government has the moral right to interfere with it's citizens rights, be that abortion, gay marriage, taxes, basically any law that restricts the rights of what a person can or cannot do (and I'm not talking about murder or theft, those aren't rights, as they affect other people). Does a government have a right to tell homosexual men they cannot be married?

I know I have a reputation for being adamantly opposed to gay marriage and abortion, and truth is I still am, but I am starting to believe that the government of no nation has the right to restrict the rights of it's citizens. It exists to protect from enemies, foreign and domestic, and provide some basic services to insure that citizens are protected. Gay men aren't going to hurt anybody just by being gay. Thus, I feel that the government has no right to control marriage at all, much less restrict who can and cannot be married. Either two people, living together of any gender get the same tax status as every other two person couple living together legally, or nobody gets tax status based on marital status at all. Marriage is just another thing that government hijacked, and although I am opposed to homosexuality, I feel that the government is more wrong that homosexuals with regards to marriage rights.

This is not about equality, but about freedom. Freedom comes first, but with true freedom comes true equality.

Thus my question is what does a government have the right to do? What should it do for its citizens, and what should it not do?

Should people have to pay taxes if they don't use any services that taxes pay for?

true freedom comes from self-governing. If you live in a state you have whatever freedoms the state grants you, so naturally the state can take them away.

equality is a fairy tale, the best any state can hope to achieve is equal opportunity.

"I feel the government has no right to control marriage at all" - bingo. There is a separation of church and state. Civil unions and tax breaks are one thing, but if the government tries to change the laws of the church it is overstepping its jurisdiction, likely the result of political opportunists or pressure from lobbyists.

my idea of the ideal state is close enough to Plato's Republic.

[RusskiSoldat]

The government is by definition the monopoly on the legitimate use of force within any given nation, as such it has absolute rights to anything and everything (including conceding some of those rights, as the more advanced governments of the world do).
Whether the government should do something is another matter altogether, but I believe that as the ultimate authority over a given territory (and theoretically representative of the people), it can.

[Gary88]

the issue for me is that, if you want to be really pedantic the government doesnt have a 'right' to do anything. personally however i understand that we elect a government or leader to do just that, lead, and as such i accept that he will have powers over me like the abilitie to raise taxes etc etc etc. however we have put in long established rules on how said government can rule and it is when they step outside these rules that they have no right to act in such a way.

(ie, any new law must be passed through parliament etc etc etc)

[The Super Pope]

A government can do whatever it has the power to do. In politics power is defined as the monopoly on the use of force.
Answer: Whatever it can force you to do

[MasterOfNone]

It is certain that governments today can do anything they can get away with, but I think this thread is about what they should be able to do. I agree that governments (and any group comes to that) technically have no rights. Rights are attached to individuals and not groups. That is why I used the word 'powers'.

Powers are based upon rights of course. The right for me to speak for myself finds its delegated pooled right in government in the form of the chief executive being able to speak for the whole country in relations with other nations for example.

The whole of government is based on the individual - in both its form and its powers. It is, to put simply, the organization of our individual rights to self defence on a larger scale.

This is a negative role, but when the government assumes a positive role of provider and not just protector then it immediately violates the rights it is supposed to protect because it cannot provide without using threat of force to take from some and give to others.

And as am individual has no right to steal so then that power cannot be delegated to government because it does not exist. Its exercise - in both the individual, a private group or the group we call government - is thus a criminal act, an assumed and unjust power over others; in the government's case it is often legal of course and thus the term 'legalized plunder' is used.

[Poisoner]

A government can do whatever it has the power to do. In politics power is defined as the monopoly on the use of force.
Answer: Whatever it can force you to do

I like that no ******** answer.

[CarbEast]

The powers a government employs fall, imho, into potentially two categories:

1. Unjust powers
2. Just powers

In fact there are three categories for powers:
1. Powers that rule with force thus considered unjust powers.
2. Powers that rule with lie thus considered just powers.
3. Powers that rule with both force and lie thus considered barely just powers.

As type 1 and type 2 are extremes, all real powers at present time are type 3.

No power needs "a right" to do something, but "right" has become the great invention in converting ruling with force towards ruling with lie. Right is mere tool of power, not something power depends on, or determined with, so the answer is "government has a right to do anything, that it can persuade its people to think it has a right to do".

[STReetSamurai]

Govts have the right to do whatever they want, until they push to far and are overthrown.

Its not what they have a right to do but what they can get away with.

[VALIS]

As someone has just said, Governments in this day and age can just about force anyone to do anything.

The actual threat of being overthrown is very slim in todays western countries.
The general public have been slowly made docile and tame, so long as they have internet access, 24 hour TV and enough fuel to drive to the supermarket and buy pots of frozen food that is easily microwavable in 5 minutes, everything will be fine.

Governments do as much as the public will allow, which is quite alot.
Although not everything is hopeless, the poll tax riots proved that....but that was 15 years ago, whether the people have enough zest to bring change at that level is unknown at the moment.

[MaximiIian]

The question of what a government has the right to do is answered by the prescribed conditions of said government and state's Constitution.

Which differs from government to government.

[Sétanta]

Govts have the right to do whatever they want, until they push to far and are overthrown.

Its not what they have a right to do but what they can get away with.

So a government has the right to do whatever they want, and I thus have the right to revolt against them, is that what you are saying. That is a paradox, because if I were to revolt, as is my right, they would also have the right to try me for treason, even though I feel no bondage to said government since it is oppressing me. Good god.

MasterOfNone, brilliant post, I can't agree with you more.

[Roshak]

Thus my question is what does a government have the right to do? What should it do for its citizens, and what should it not do?

Should people have to pay taxes if they don't use any services that taxes pay for?

The Government is in charge to look over the people for when we can't look over ourselves. It keeps everything fair and just so we can all co-exist and live in the same place without everyone going crazy, murderous or what not.

The people are in charge in looking after the government in the way of making sure it doesn't cross the line of getting too powerful. Just because some one believes in Gay marriage or not doesn't mean there should be legislation that would force that person to go one way or the other.

The problem however lies in people's beliefs. Suppose someone believes in Global Warming and the other does not, but they're both paying taxes to start dealing with Global warming. This is where the greater good comes into play. Unfortunately the greater good can mean anything from peace to simply keeping themselves in office.

People make up the government, and since people have flaws so will the government. No one is perfect and neither is any government be it socialism, democracy, monarchy or whatever. What we can do and have to do is learn how to deal with the situations at hand and for the future as well as understand and learn how to deal with each other.

[Nikephoros II Phokas]

So a government has the right to do whatever they want, and I thus have the right to revolt against them, is that what you are saying. That is a paradox, because if I were to revolt, as is my right, they would also have the right to try me for treason, even though I feel no bondage to said government since it is oppressing me. Good god.

MasterOfNone, brilliant post, I can't agree with you more.

what does "right" mean? If you feel entitled or (in the case of revolt) compelled to do something, does that make it right? Your paradox only works if you assume "right" has an objective meaning, which it does not.