NationStates Jolt Archive

Note: This is Shrin Kali. My usual account isn't working right now for some strange reason.

This thread is over the debate over who exactly the government are. Are they the stewards of the land, there to insure that no one despoils it and nature? Are they there to insure civic equality for all their citizens? Are they the keepers of the peace? Is the equal spreading of wealth the concern of the government, or should the heads of a country concern themselves with the furthering of the economy? To what extent and cost should each of these things be pursued?

My personal belief is that the government has very nearly no responsibilities other than ensuring that all have access to education. My reasoning to this is that someone who is well educated and flexible is therefore adaptable to conditions that may change without notice. This is rooted in capitalist ideals. Namely, when a hundred people are skilled at sewing in a community, fine clothes are extremely cheap there - but all the seamsters are poor as dirt. If eighty of them knew how to be other useful things, the economy would balance itself effectively and none of them would be driven into the dirt. There is also the fact that tyranny can only exist by force and fraud - when dissenters are killed or prevented by keeping the populace ignorant.


Now, please. I would like people to propose and defend their ideals of government responsibility. You can also directly refute my own idea, picking it apart. I'm curious what others think on this topic.

Night watchman for the most part. Keep us safe from force or fraud, be it either from our fellow citizens of our nation, or other nations.

Beyond that, there is a case for certain public works. Namely things like roads as well as primary and secondary education. But that's as far as it goes.

Make sure that all nationals get a good education
Make sure that the nature is protected
Serve all nationals the best way possible
Make sure the people (nationals), land, air and waters are protected (Military, Coast Guard, Police, Customs etc.)
Make sure that all will get work
Protect and use natural resources
Make sure all industry is fair and used to the max.
Make laws and regulations for civil and ALLl other issues (Make all laws and regs.)
Make sure that all nationals get cheap but very good health care
Head of transportation issues

etc.

To define and ensure the social contract.

To rigourously enforce Christian morality.

to ensure that no citizen goes without good health and education.

to ensure that no citizen goes without every and all civil rights.

to ensure that no person or group of people (read: corporation) irrevocably damages the environment for personal or private gain.

The most basic purpose of government is to provide justice: that is, to see that the guilty are punished and that the innocent are set free.

In an economic sense, they should provide a BASIC infrastructure to let the economy work on its own: roads, stable currency, etc.

J I H A D

to ensure that no citizen goes without good health and education.

to ensure that no citizen goes without every and all civil rights.

to ensure that no person or group of people (read: corporation) irrevocably damages the environment for personal or private gain.

I am not arguing with you at all, as I completely agree with you on all three points, but what is your justification for those points?

The primary responsibility of government is protect citizens' rights (including supressing lawless elements).

Make sure that all nationals get a good education
Make sure that the nature is protected
Serve all nationals the best way possible
Make sure the people (nationals), land, air and waters are protected (Military, Coast Guard, Police, Customs etc.)
Make sure that all will get work
Protect and use natural resources
Make sure all industry is fair and used to the max.
Make laws and regulations for civil and ALLl other issues (Make all laws and regs.)
Make sure that all nationals get cheap but very good health care
Head of transportation issues

etc.

In other words be your precious nanny who kisses your boo-boo, guiding you by the hand from birth to death. :rolleyes: Grow a Spine.

The Government's responsibility lies in two things and two things only.

1) Guaranteed personal freedom. Personal freedom. Not freedom from disease, not freedom from working 12 hours a day, not freedom from insults or from pain. Just freedom to make your own way in life. That includes the freedom to fail and starve to death. It also includes such things as creating a semi-level playing ground through education and roadways etc... It doesn't include anything as silly as "ensuring all people get work."

2) National protection. Ideally via a 2 year mandatory military service for all people, men and women. Occurring at the age of 18 and 19. Period. Junior High, High-school, Military; then work, college or the trades.

The purpose of the government is to protect its citizens.

Now, from there we get into all sorts of argument as to what extent the government can do so.

Should they protect us from ourselves? As a general rule, I would say not. A competent adult should be able to make their own decisions, and take the consequences of such actions.

Should they protect us from each other? As far as physical harm goes, definitely. As far as long-term emotional harm goes, probably. As far as "THAT OFFENDS ME!!!" goes, absolutely not.

Should they protect us from other countries? Yes.

Should they protect us from the government? Yes.

snip.

I am trying to flesh out my own views on this, so I am trying to get to the bottom of everyone else's views, so explain why the government should protect its citizens.

In other words be your precious nanny who kisses your boo-boo, guiding you by the hand from birth to death. :rolleyes: Grow a Spine.

You might have had something interesting to say, but I rather doubt it, and stopped reading your post after I read your childish put down.


My opinion on the gov't is that it should enact the democratic will of the people. No more, no less.

My opinion on the gov't is that it should enact the democratic will of the people. No more, no less.

And if that democratic will is to kill off a minority? That happened in Iraq in the '20's. The people voted to start killing off the Assyrian Christians.

Ideally, the purpose of government is to ensure the well-being of its citizens while encouraging them to be productive. This is why a good education system is so important. Government should take care of some needs and keep some watch in certain areas (like making sure industry doesn't do anything to screw over its customers or employees) but should stay the hell away from enforcing victimless crimes.

In reality, government exists to serve those who have some measure of power. The powerless, dirt poor, and oppressed have no say, and the all-powerful are capable of holding a great deal of power over the government. Laws are made in the interests of people who have power to make them. Maybe there "should" be a law granting gays the right to marry, but the powerful are the right-wing Christians who don't want to allow it. Until the gay rights movement is more powerful than the anti-gay movement, gays will remain oppressed, and the anti-gay movement will oppress them as a matter of staying on top.

The government's purpose, in short, is to ensure that all its citizens are treated justly. As John Rawls noted, "Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought. A theory however elegant and economical must be rejected if it is untrue; likewise laws and institutions no matter how efficient and well-arranged must be reformed or abolished if they are unjust."

Now of course, this gets into hairy questions of what justice is and who defines it, but you didn't ask for that. You asked what the purpose of government was.

You might have had something interesting to say, but I rather doubt it, and stopped reading your post after I read your childish put down.

Why thank you. And to misquote starwars. "Who is more childish, the child or the one whom responds?"

And if that democratic will is to kill off a minority? That happened in Iraq in the '20's. The people voted to start killing off the Assyrian Christians.

Hmmm. Good point. I'm a little ignorant of the time lines. Was this before or after the UK invaded and tried to set up an "Arab Facade" colonial government? Was this before or after Churchill approved the use of mustard gas on the Kurds? And did the Assyrian Christians collaborate on any of this?

Finally, there was a ballot seeking peoples decision to kill off the Assyrians?

I am trying to flesh out my own views on this, so I am trying to get to the bottom of everyone else's views, so explain why the government should protect its citizens.

That is the purpose the people give it. Otherwise, the people have no reason to give authority to a government - and said authority does have to be given.

Hmmm. Good point. I'm a little ignorant of the time lines. Was this before or after the UK invaded and tried to set up an "Arab Facade" colonial government? Was this before or after Churchill approved the use of mustard gas on the Kurds? And did the Assyrian Christians collaborate on any of this?

Finally, there was a ballot seeking peoples decision to kill off the Assyrians?

I'm no expert on the time period either. I just heard about it in class a few days ago. What I understand is that the British attempted to set up a government in Iraq, so they got an election going. The Iraqis legitimately elected a government, who then decided to start killing off the Christians. Nobody protested, except, obviously, the Assyrian Christians.

And if that democratic will is to kill off a minority? That happened in Iraq in the '20's. The people voted to start killing off the Assyrian Christians.
Very good point.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" -- Benjamin Franklin

Personally, I feel similarly to many of my colleagues who have mentioned that the responsibility of government is to uphold justice (basically). I further distinguish my own view by specifying that justice has, as its primary component, the rights of the individual. We still seem to be deciding exactly what rights an individual has, but this much should be obvious: No individual's rights should infringe on or trample over any other individual's rights, and all individuals' rights should be equal.

In my idea a goverment should be.

Simply a Forum for People to elect qualified members of the nation to administer, Defence, Foreign and Domestic Policy and Economics, Nothing Else

It should never ever be able to change intrest rates

It should provide Public good's e.g defence, sanitation

It should provide Merit good's e.g Health Care, Education, Higher Education

There should be an uneditable Constitution that the government can never avoid complying to

There must be a powerful second house of unelected, or un party affiliated members in order to stop the effects of popularism, and any legislation to be passed must also pass through this house.

My opinion on the gov't is that it should enact the democratic will of the people. No more, no less.
So you're a 'tyranny of the majority' man, yes?

That is the purpose the people give it. Otherwise, the people have no reason to give authority to a government - and said authority does have to be given.

But why give government that authority and nothing else? What is the justification for giving government authority, what is the need it fulfills?

So you're a 'tyranny of the majority' man, yes?

Sure, why not? If we're going to be saddled with governments they might as well be responsive to peoples wishes. I don't agree with any of this crap about an enlightened class of decision makers acting as stewards for the nation. That's just a sophisticated form of feudalism.

Implicit in a 'tyranny of the majority' are a number of assumptions: That the government is truly responsive to majority wishes, that all possible factions have equal access to mass communications. That the government is subject to instant recall with a suitable mechanism. That all government documents and communications are instantly accessible by every resident in the country. There's a hell of a lot more but you get the drift.

If this all seems hypothetical, utopian and unworkable it's because it is. Institutions of centralized power will never allow this to happen, but the thread asked for the primary responsibility of government. Obeying the popular will, without a popular mandate any government is illegitimate.

Two distinct points of view as to the purpose of Government.

1. Protection: (Hobbes' Leviathan) We know that by ourselves we are a pretty weak and helpless bunch of incompetent animals. No claws, no fangs. However we do know how to work together, how to make weapons, how to fight wars etc. All we need, to be able to survive in this nasty world, is someone to co-ordinate all this violent activity and to direct it at others, rather than at us. If they do that for us, we will provide them with the means of survival (food, shelter etc.) Oh look, a contract. You defend us, we support you.

2. Justice and Mutual benefit (Hume) We are social animals, we grow up in families. We learn from this that helping others often helps us. I scratch your back and mine stops itching. Now we also recognise that not everyone is so even minded. (We had brothers or sisters after all). So when it comes round to time to help you harvest your crops, I would like some guarantee that you will reciprocate in some way. I know, let us put together a trusted group of individuals to decide any complaints or grievances. We will give them the power to decide what is acceptable and what is not for our now very extended family (Why did Nora have to take up with that Chinese lad?). These rules will govern our society, hence the group that decides them will be called the government. Principally it will define what is mine and what is not.

Take your choice, or combine the two.

Two distinct points of view as to the purpose of Government.

1. Protection: (Hobbes' Leviathan)

2. Justice and Mutual benefit (Hume)

Take your choice, or combine the two.

Hobbes' view of the social contract was dependent on the existence and devine governance of God through political leaders, was it not?

I would say that a secular society would have to reject Hobbes reasoning. Otherwise, there would be no one that would have the justification to lead.

Hobbes' view of the social contract was dependent on the existence and devine governance of God through political leaders, was it not?

I would say that a secular society would have to reject Hobbes reasoning. Otherwise, there would be no one that would have the justification to lead.

Not quite. All the devine stuff was tacked on at the end. The actual argument for the contract between the protected and the protector was all to do with secular power. No God stuff in this bit at all. The justification to lead was a might is right type justification, he that could lead should lead.

Providing for the people.

Not quite. All the devine stuff was tacked on at the end. The actual argument for the contract between the protected and the protector was all to do with secular power. No God stuff in this bit at all. The justification to lead was a might is right type justification, he that could lead should lead.

Oh, so Hobbes just reasoned out that someone would be able to lead through the choice of God, I suppose.

In that case I will have to dismiss Hobbes's ideas for other reasons.

AB, where do you stand on the two?

Oh, so Hobbes just reasoned out that someone would be able to lead through the choice of God, I suppose.

In that case I will have to dismiss Hobbes's ideas for other reasons.

AB, where do you stand on the two?

Hobbes was writing at the time of the English Civil War. He had to word things very carefully if he wanted to keep his head attached to his shoulders. It is apparent that he did believe in the divine right of Kings, but his arguments do not refer to god specifically, until he arrives at the third part of Leviathan "Of a Christian Common-Wealth" Sovereigns are given power by the consent of the people that the sovereign is to represent. See chapter 18 "Of the RIGHTS of Sovraignes by Institution"

Me. I am as nearly as Humean in my thinking as Adam Smith was. (I am also writing my dissertation on Hume's moral theory, so it is rather ingrained in me at the moment)

Not quite. All the devine stuff was tacked on at the end. The actual argument for the contract between the protected and the protector was all to do with secular power. No God stuff in this bit at all. The justification to lead was a might is right type justification, he that could lead should lead.

Sounds like a launch pad for the circuitous justification for a ruling class.

1: He that could lead should lead.
2: There are individuals who have inheirited power for generations hence, some families are naturally predisposed to being good leaders.
3: Leaders are our protectors, their decisions protect and benefit us all.
4: Our current social heirarchy is just.
5: Shut up and get back to work.

Not the most clearly articulated I admit, but you get the gist.

If this all seems hypothetical, utopian and unworkable it's because it is. Institutions of centralized power will never allow this to happen, but the thread asked for the primary responsibility of government. Obeying the popular will, without a popular mandate any government is illegitimate.
I'm not saying that dictatorship is a good idea, and I agree that people should elect representatives. But there should be a balance between absolute following of the popular will and respect for the rights of the minority.

Case in point: This last november, the people 11 US states voted to permanently prevent homosexuals from getting their due civil rights to marriage and civil unions. I think that is tyranny of the majority that should not be allowed to happen.

I'm not saying that dictatorship is a good idea, and I agree that people should elect representatives. But there should be a balance between absolute following of the popular will and respect for the rights of the minority.

Case in point: This last november, the people 11 US states voted to permanently prevent homosexuals from getting their due civil rights to marriage and civil unions. I think that is tyranny of the majority that should not be allowed to happen.

And it's a good point. I admit, I wasn't as clear as I could be. I'm assuming that my hypothetical population isn't dwelling in a heavily propagandised society. I feel a great deal of horror and pity for Americans whenever I turn on CNN and I'm exposed to the daily bombardment of hysteria, militarism, consumerism and cynicism. A plethora of negative -isms. I'm all too happy to turn back to Canadian news channels. Not that I'm saying we're safe from propaganda, we voted in free trade in a referendum under Mulrooney after all.

I think the minorities in my hypothetical land would be safe if no hegemony over public discourse was established by any one faction. As an example, progroms against Jews in Medieval Europe were usually preceeded by Passion Plays (a la the passion of the christ, only MORE anti semitic)
But again, my argument only succeeds if you feel humanities social, creative qualities outweigh it's darker impulses.

Sounds like a launch pad for the circuitous justification for a ruling class.

1: He that could lead should lead.
2: There are individuals who have inheirited power for generations hence, some families are naturally predisposed to being good leaders.
3: Leaders are our protectors, their decisions protect and benefit us all.
4: Our current social heirarchy is just.
5: Shut up and get back to work.

Not the most clearly articulated I admit, but you get the gist.

Hobbes was the first and possibly the greatest conservative theoretician. Yes he was arguing for the status quo. The arguments were basically those that you present, just a lot more sophisticated in their presentation and complemented by the concept of a contract (implicit) between the classes.
The shut up and get back to work was more an "enough already with this revolution stuff, you're wrecking everything so stop it and get back to work."

I am not a fan of Hobbes' Leviathan. De Civis is a lot better, but I don't have a copy to hand and I have not worked with it for more than a decade.

A little off-topic, but AB, how old are you and what line of work are you in?

Note: This is Shrin Kali. My usual account isn't working right now for some strange reason.

This thread is over the debate over who exactly the government are. Are they the stewards of the land, there to insure that no one despoils it and nature? Are they there to insure civic equality for all their citizens? Are they the keepers of the peace? Is the equal spreading of wealth the concern of the government, or should the heads of a country concern themselves with the furthering of the economy? To what extent and cost should each of these things be pursued?

My personal belief is that the government has very nearly no responsibilities other than ensuring that all have access to education. My reasoning to this is that someone who is well educated and flexible is therefore adaptable to conditions that may change without notice. This is rooted in capitalist ideals. Namely, when a hundred people are skilled at sewing in a community, fine clothes are extremely cheap there - but all the seamsters are poor as dirt. If eighty of them knew how to be other useful things, the economy would balance itself effectively and none of them would be driven into the dirt. There is also the fact that tyranny can only exist by force and fraud - when dissenters are killed or prevented by keeping the populace ignorant.


Now, please. I would like people to propose and defend their ideals of government responsibility. You can also directly refute my own idea, picking it apart. I'm curious what others think on this topic.
Government's primary purposes are to "establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty" for the people it represents.

A little off-topic, but AB, how old are you and what line of work are you in?

You have a TG. (Off topic and a little longer than you would expect)