Why would you want to limit the power of government

[Kuya]

But not the speed at which people can obtain money? I don't understand, isn't money the same as power?

[Blarg]

money is time, and since time is not power then neither is money

[Kuya]

Time is not money if you don't use it to make money, you silly quebecois.

[hagun]

Dunno what a quebecois is but that sounded funny as hell.

[TheShadyMan]

Yes it is, you're just spending that money at the rate you don't use it.

[Colenzo]

Dunno what a quebecois is but that sounded funny as hell.

i think its like cool way to spell queef

[Kuya]

One presumes that the reason you'd want to limit political power is because it can be tyrannical, but if money can become political power, then what do you do then?

[TheShadyMan]

Communism.

[Kuya]

But that's tyrannical too!

[TheShadyMan]

So? Whichever way you go, you're gonna be governed by a human construct, and as a rule, human constructs are flawed.

[Howard Roark]

well then how 'bout a Loligarchy?

http://www.dreamjap.com/blog/wp-cont..._mashimaro.jpg

[Kuya]

But Shady, government is not tyrannical by itself, it is only so when it has a monopoly on force. We must take that into account!

[TheShadyMan]

2nd Amendment.

[Howard Roark]

So? Whichever way you go, you're gonna be governed by a human construct, and as a rule, human constructs are flawed.

a serious shady post? in my bg?

[TheShadyMan]

Kuya is the only one I'd go seriousface with in Spam.

[Kuya]

2nd Amendment.

Well i suppose not a monopoly if we consider any weapon to equal power, even a knife is power over those who don't have one, but that doesn't necessarily mean a monopoly. A monopoly would imply something were only the particulars have access to it. So we can do one of two things, consider each and every weapon and see if the government has a monopoly over it or not, or decide which weapons are truly the most relevant measures of military and judicial power and judge it based on it. If we make a quick glance, i believe we can at least agree that the government has a monopoly on certain weapons, such as ships, aircraft, and certain missiles. The government having a monopoly or not will depend on how you phrase it, but i believe we can both agree that the government vs the people is rather one sided just as long as the government has the weapons it does.

[TheShadyMan]

Or, we can realize that whatever parameters we invent for it, we're wrong because we made it up.

[Kuya]

But we are making an assumption here, we are talking as if the government is some foreign entity that is not part of society. What if we are the government? As a democratic one would imply? Would a monopoly be a bad thing then? But we know we don't exactly live in a literal democracy, so when we talk about the government we should at least acknowledge that we don't exactly refer to a monolithic force.

[Kuya]

Or, we can realize that whatever parameters we invent for it, we're wrong because we made it up.

That kind of makes speaking about anything irrelevant, since the language we use to convey and invent concepts is itself made up. The government itself is "made up".

[Kuya]

It is also important to add, that the US government ever turning and attacking a large percentage of its population is extremely unlikely as the government's power is basically based on legitimacy, and if the government turned on its people it would lose said legitimacy. For a capitalist government, it is in its best interest to keep its population as comfortable as possible while keeping it as uninterested as possible in administrative institutions. A government only needs to use its military force for its own interest, and part of that interest is maintaining its power or obtaining more of it, if it already has power over its nation, then there is little point in using the military to obtain legitimacy. The 2nd amendment would probably be more relevant in somewhere like Africa than the US.