You are sitting there alone at your home when all of a sudden some security officials burst into your house and ask that you submit to them. You sit down in your backyard watching some unknown people crush down your house so that someone else could build a factory out there. Life in your neighbourhood was all good and healthy, happy and gay until the local government decided to dispose off the municipal waste near your neighbourhood. What can you do? What are your rights? Are you the slave of the government?
The government has raped us all. What do you think about this guys?
for more visit: http://dreamnepal.wordpress.com

.

More from the article:
Socrates has been largely criticized for his argument that spouses and children be held in common in his ideal state. He cares less about human needs and their desires. He does not believe that happiness can come through the social interactions. Rather, he believes true happiness is obtained when the soul rules over the appetite and the spirit part of our life. He focuses on what he thinks is good for people irrespective of their human desires. If all children are left in care at the common child care units as envisioned by Socrates, I believe they will not develop well. Why should someone care about a child who is not his own and when the real parent can avoid his responsibility of taking care of his child.
Besides, Socratic is too authoritarian when he talks about having sex only in the predetermined times of a year. Sex is a need for people. It helps people develop a sense of love and belonging whereby they learn to love others. His vision that abolition of family relationship will help guardian better focus on the interest of the society is never possible in this world as people are selfish by nature. Moreover, the abolition of family system would lead to higher crimes as they would have no affection towards other people.

The government has to strike a balance between respecting an individual's rights to privacy, and transgressing these rights that most of us take for granted, if it is for the good of the country. If indeed, these rights have to be violated, the onus lies on the government to justify and explain their actions, clearly and forthrightly, to the public, at an opportune time, or after the dangers faced by the country have subsided. Not doing so may not only raise some eyebrows, but may also mean that the government in power may lose public support. The NSA wiretapping controversy, which currently is at the heart of the privacy rights argument, is a hot-button issue only because of the decision of the Bush administration to keep certain power authorized to the NSA after 9/11, behind closed doors. Had the Bush administration explained to the public why surveillance without a F.I.S.A warrant is paramount to the security of the country, and why maintenance of a database of calls placed in the United States is also vital, this issue would have died by now. The Bush administration has dug its own graves by setting these policies surreptitiously, without giving the American people any clues as to what actions were being taken to protect us. With this in mind, it is not a surprise that the Bush administration has been called the most secretive government to have been at the helm since the Nixon administration.
In this day and age, when terrorism is a daily threat, when disaffected Muslim youths are seduced by the messages put forth by the Al Qaeda, when nuclear proliferation is a true danger, learning to live without rights we take for granted becomes a necessity. If explained in this manner, that safety trumps privacy, most people, I would wager, are willing to sacrifice their freedoms. By no means does this mean that each and every right guaranteed to us should be whisked away from us. Rather, the government should be given the leeway to make policies that would benefit us all by keeping us safe and secure.
Of course, the realities of Nepal are different . The Nepali constititution should ensure that the government does not trample on individual rights, that all humans are treated the same, that dalits and minorities are not discriminated against, that women are treated respectfully, and that religion and state are separated, much like in India and America. Therefore, while in America, we have all the rights we want, in Nepal, we don't have enough rights. This is something to ponder about.

okay wht abt the good things that govt does for us??? thats just one side of the story.

Some more from the article:

However, the modern governments take power for granted and have gone far from upholding the trust which people had on the governments when they formed them. Now, governments are so powerful that they can make laws as they see fit. The rights of the people are confined very much. People do not even have the freedom to move from one place to another as and when they desire.

For instance, American people are warned against visiting Communist countries of the world like Cuba. Besides, there are several regulations which hinder the process of getting visa. Many laws are made every year that only limit the freedom of the people. In fact, the people do not have a direct say over how they should be ruled. The modern democracy is far from the notion of “a rule by the people; for the people; of the people”

gunda,
Read the article, it does mention something when we need government...here is a synopsis...

This however does not mean that we do not need the governments. Man will face a lot of problems in the state of nature and thus, governments are necessary to ease their lives. Rules and regulations that aim to respect the equal rights of all the people will make it easier to live on earth. However, rules alone will not be sufficient. We need a body to implement the regulations. And, the core function of the government is to enact the laws that are made to create harmony in the society, not to create rules which inhibit human progress.

ooooooo man i dont wanna read the article its probably so long just ignore my comments above