Oxford Dictionary wrote: Government:

[TREATED AS SINGULAR OR PLURAL] The group of people with the authority to govern a country or state; a particular ministry in office:
the government’s economic record
successive Labour governments

SYNONYMS
1.1 [MASS NOUN] The system by which a state or community is governed:
a democratic form of government

1.2 [MASS NOUN] The action or manner of controlling or regulating a state, organization, or people:
rules for the government of the infirmary

source: Oxford Dictionary

Wikipedia wrote:A government is the system by which a state or community is governed.[1] In Commonwealth English, a government more narrowly refers to the particular executive in control of a state at a given time[2]—known in American English as an administration. In American English, government refers to the larger system by which any state is organised.[3] Furthermore, government is occasionally used in English as a synonym for governance.

source: Wikipedia

Which of these sentences excludes governments being profit oriented?

Cha0zz wrote:

Oxford Dictionary wrote: Government:

[TREATED AS SINGULAR OR PLURAL] The group of people with the authority to govern a country or state; a particular ministry in office:
the government’s economic record
successive Labour governments

SYNONYMS
1.1 [MASS NOUN] The system by which a state or community is governed:
a democratic form of government

1.2 [MASS NOUN] The action or manner of controlling or regulating a state, organization, or people:
rules for the government of the infirmary

source: Oxford Dictionary

Wikipedia wrote:A government is the system by which a state or community is governed.[1] In Commonwealth English, a government more narrowly refers to the particular executive in control of a state at a given time[2]—known in American English as an administration. In American English, government refers to the larger system by which any state is organised.[3] Furthermore, government is occasionally used in English as a synonym for governance.

source: Wikipedia

Which of these sentences excludes governments being profit oriented?

Which of these definitions implie the reason for existence as being the profit motive? I did not say government can't seek profit I said that the profit motive is not the motive for existence.

Read my all my comments including those in which I corrected myself.

P.S.

Do Dictionary deffinitions matter? Someone told me they don’t!

I think I understand what you're getting at Hadrianus, but I think we're starting to convolute the point with semantecs.

The idea is that governments can be for-profit vs. governments that are governing only and non-profit, right?

Well, there does exist something as a non-profit corporation so ...

Maybe, though people involved in them still get paid.

Katawa wrote:Maybe, though people involved in them still get paid.

and politicians work for free?

Cha0zz wrote:and politicians work for free?

That would be a fun system.

Katawa wrote:

Cha0zz wrote:and politicians work for free?

That would be a fun system.

it would be fun if they would be paid based on direct democracy...
you work bad, you dont get any paycheck anymore!

2 weeks and all world problems are gone

Cornflakes_91 wrote:2 weeks and all world problems are gone

No, only the honest politicians are all gone.
Those that have "additional" means of income will then rule the world uncontested.

Cornflakes_91 wrote:

Katawa wrote:

Cha0zz wrote:and politicians work for free?

That would be a fun system.

it would be fun if they would be paid based on direct democracy...
you work bad, you dont get any paycheck anymore!

2 weeks and all world problems are gone

Politics alone will never solve the world's problems.

More realistically: divert all funds into researching artificial intelligence. A few years later and all the world's problems will be solved.

ThymineC wrote:More realistically: divert all funds into researching artificial intelligence. A few years later and all the world's problems will be solved.

I think I see where this is going...

Cornflakes_91 wrote:

Katawa wrote:

Cha0zz wrote:and politicians work for free?

That would be a fun system.

it would be fun if they would be paid based on direct democracy...
you work bad, you dont get any paycheck anymore!

2 weeks and all world problems are gone

Finally something we can agree on!

DWMagus wrote:I think I understand what you're getting at Hadrianus, but I think we're starting to convolute the point with semantecs.

The idea is that governments can be for-profit vs. governments that are governing only and non-profit, right?

In a short and simple way YES. But again this heated discussion on the similarities between a government and a corporation is rather beside the point. I would love for there to the Corpotacracy. I just wanted to know if that is going to be the system in place or a more traditional real world sort of system of government.

Cha0zz wrote:Well, there does exist something as a non-profit corporation so ...

You are correct but if you look at a non-profit you will quickly see that they have a rather limited goal, example feed the poor, treat the sick, etc. In theory government has to provide most of the so called public goods.

Add to that that government has the power to impose tax and that most citizens are born into the authority of a government, whilst a non-profit has no such power and you can see how short a non-profit falls in comparison to a government,

A government is an institution that holds a monopoly on the use and/or direction of force. Perhaps not an exclusive monopoly, but a dominating one.

Draglide12 wrote:A government is an institution that holds a monopoly on the use and/or direction of force. Perhaps not an exclusive monopoly, but a dominating one.

So is the local street gang that confiscates your weapons and pushes you around.

Law and legality are only what you can enforce as such.
Saying that the street gang is not the law because government and police are bigger fish... well, alien invaders who push your government around kind of put that into perspective. =)

Ixos wrote: Ever heard the expression: "The exception confirms the rule"?

I've heard the expression "the exception that proves (as in tests) the rule" misused like that hundreds of times, yes.

Out of millions of companies/corporations, yes your able to find a few examples if you go back a few hundred years...

So basically you're going to ignore the biggest company in history and the entire way colonialism was actually practiced because you just don't believe it.

The Dutch, Spanish, Portuguese and French empires also expanded in much the same way - private colonisers operating with implicit backing of whichever crown they represented but mostly autonomously. The same strategy extended right up through the "civilising" of the American West, with corporate entities like the railroads and mining concerns acting as pioneers for colonial interests.

It's not an exception. It's the rule.