NationStates Jolt Archive


FOR the people or OF the people?

Pure Metal
19-11-2004, 15:50
OK first note that this doesn’t (directly) have anything to do with the American Constitution.

This was an issue that we touched on briefly, and that I wanted to expand on, in the Intro To Government tutorial I just had. The opportunity passed and so I thought here would be a good place for debate on the issue….

So, Democracy is rule BY the people, granted; but should government be FOR the people or OF the people? Let me elaborate: should the government work solely in the best interests of the people (FOR …) or should it simply respond and act upon the will of the people (OF …) whether this is in their best interests, or whether its actions are moral, or not?

The two examples for either side that I thought up were The (or a) Holocaust or ‘Ethnic Cleansing’ and, on the other side, Decriminalisation (or Legalisation) of Marijuana. If Ethnic Cleansing was the ‘will of the people’ – the popular consensus – then should the government still follow this policy (OF the people) despite it being morally wrong and not in anybody’s best interests?

In the UK, decriminalisation of Cannabis is on the agenda. Public opinion suggests indifference (or more succinctly a 2/3 majority against or indifferent to the idea) while the Government still researches and debates it. Should the Government decriminalise the drug (after it has already been reclassified contrary to public opinion), a drug that it is starting to believe is relatively non-harmful, and thus (hypothetically) take an action that it believes is in the public’s best interest while it is clearly not the popular consensus?

In short, should the government do what it thinks is right for its people, or should it simply (and blindly) do what the public want?
Green israel
19-11-2004, 16:06
OK first note that this doesn’t (directly) have anything to do with the American Constitution.

This was an issue that we touched on briefly, and that I wanted to expand on, in the Intro To Government tutorial I just had. The opportunity passed and so I thought here would be a good place for debate on the issue….

So, Democracy is rule BY the people, granted; but should government be FOR the people or OF the people? Let me elaborate: should the government work solely in the best interests of the people (FOR …) or should it simply respond and act upon the will of the people (OF …) whether this is in their best interests, or whether its actions are moral, or not?

The two examples for either side that I thought up were The (or a) Holocaust or ‘Ethnic Cleansing’ and, on the other side, Decriminalisation (or Legalisation) of Marijuana. If Ethnic Cleansing was the ‘will of the people’ – the popular consensus – then should the government still follow this policy (OF the people) despite it being morally wrong and not in anybody’s best interests?

In the UK, decriminalisation of Cannabis is on the agenda. Public opinion suggests indifference (or more succinctly a 2/3 majority against or indifferent to the idea) while the Government still researches and debates it. Should the Government decriminalise the drug (after it has already been reclassified contrary to public opinion), a drug that it is starting to believe is relatively non-harmful, and thus (hypothetically) take an action that it believes is in the public’s best interest while it is clearly not the popular consensus?

In short, should the government do what it thinks is right for its people, or should it simply (and blindly) do what the public want?
in perfect world, they will do both. when they do only one of that, that can't be good.
for exemple, if the goverment ban the cars it reduce the number of dies on road accidents and improve the environnement, but it harm the people life.
if they take the other side and cencel all the laws on driving, the people may be happy, but hundreds will die every month on the road.

I think that there is no right sollution for whole the cases, but if the goverment can to find action that bring good to the people on the long time, they should do even if it make the life little harder for the citizens.
UpwardThrust
19-11-2004, 16:10
in perfect world, they will do both. when they do only one of that, that can't be good.
for exemple, if the goverment ban the cars it reduce the number of dies on road accidents and improve the environnement, but it harm the people life.
if they take the other side and cencel all the laws on driving, the people may be happy, but hundreds will die every month on the road.

I think that there is no right sollution for whole the cases, but if the goverment can to find action that bring good to the people on the long time, they should do even if it make the life little harder for the citizens.
Ok really need to put some thought into the composition of posts here SO hard to understand.

Also doing both is almost impossible (not QUITE like the immoveable object vs. irresistible force argument … but close)
Pure Metal
19-11-2004, 16:21
well my thinking was not exactly "both" but, similarly, "either/or". I think it's probably best for a government to decide whether to either act on what the people want or to do what's best for them on a per-issue basis. Some things are morally wrong (or right) and perhaps the government should always enforce the morally correct standpoint; and on other issues, perhaps where morality isn't the only factor, then they should go with the the people's views - like libertarianism.
but that's just my view...
Green israel
19-11-2004, 16:28
Ok really need to put some thought into the composition of posts here SO hard to understand.

Also doing both is almost impossible (not QUITE like the immoveable object vs. irresistible force argument … but close)
why that impossible?
you think that all the citizens are too dumb, for choose what they want, and do it right?
also I said that the solution for perfect world. when I said that world is perfect?

also, in the end I said that there isn't right solution for all the cases. what is hard to understand in that?
UpwardThrust
19-11-2004, 16:31
why that impossible?
you think that all the citizens are too dumb, for choose what they want, and do it right?
also I said that the solution for perfect world. when I said that world is perfect?

also, in the end I said that there isn't right solution for all the cases. what is hard to understand in that?
But even in an ideal world needs and wants do not necessarily line up, specifically because they are different.
I mean someone may want all their needs but they want to add more then just the necessities.

They just don’t match up exactly
Green israel
19-11-2004, 22:05
But even in an ideal world needs and wants do not necessarily line up, specifically because they are different.
I mean someone may want all their needs but they want to add more then just the necessities.

They just don’t match up exactly
in perfect world they want only what they need because there is no greedy in perfect world.
but this is just theory because the humanity never live in perfect world, so you don't need to stick to that paragraph.
Texastambul
19-11-2004, 22:19
Both.

The govenment is comprised of representative OF the people who work FOR the people...
Faithfull-freedom
19-11-2004, 22:23
Ideally for the people and of the people go hand in hand. For the people; is giving something back, of the people are the ones that gave back. We the people.
Consul Augustus
19-11-2004, 23:36
one problem: what if the government doesnt know what's good for the people?

Anyway, it's an interresting question. I think real democracy is only compatible with the 'of the people' version. If the power is really to be in the people's hands, then there should not be a wise father above the people who will tell them what's good for them. But then again, is real democracy perfect?

So far the discussion was about a perfect world. Well, in the real world I think neither the people, nor it's government really knows what's best for the country. We're still humans! My solution would be an 'of the people' democracy, which is checked and controlled firmly by a constitution. Within reasonable boundaries the people may decide. But the people may not democratically decide to commit a crime.