NationStates Jolt Archive

I found a fantastic quote in the Utilitarianism versus Objectivism thread that I wanted people to read, and discuss...
It is not the role of the government to provide for the welfare of its citizens. The role of the government is to provide for the freedom of its citizens.

Do you agree with this? Why or why not?

I found a fantastic quote in the Utilitarianism versus Objectivism thread that I wanted people to read, and discuss...


Do you agree with this? Why or why not?

If the role of government was to ensure freedom then the perfect form of government would be one without laws, taxes or any kind of influence on the general population.

I found a fantastic quote in the Utilitarianism versus Objectivism thread that I wanted people to read, and discuss...


Do you agree with this? Why or why not?
Well me thinks, the government should ensure the basic needs for its citizens as well as their (other) rights, which include freedom of course.

Well me thinks, the government should ensure the basic needs for its citizens as well as their (other) rights, which include freedom of course.

Seconded.

I guess it depends on what you mean by freedom. For some, freedom would mean the freedom to do whatever you please, and for others it would mean the freedom to be free from fear, hunger and so on...

If the role of government was to ensure freedom then the perfect form of government would be one without laws, taxes or any kind of influence on the general population.

But is the government then responsable for stoping people from infringing on other peoples freedoms?

It's not a very clear statement. There is no commonly agreed on clear boundry between welfare and freedom. For example it's hard to be free if you're dead from cholera, which means that the government my infringe on my freedom to crap in the water supply. Presumably education improves my choices in life and thus my freedom, so wouldn't public education, which is welfare, improve my freedom?

But is the government then responsable for stoping people from infringing on other peoples freedoms?

In doing so they would appear to be infringing the rights of people to infringe on the rights of others.

I know my answer might come across as double talk, but it isn't.

But is the government then responsable for stoping people from infringing on other peoples freedoms?
Exactly the problem.

The definition of 'freedom' is so variable depending on one's viewpoint.

Yet, to try and avoid a definition war...let's just take freedom and welfare at their most surface to begin with.

Should governments be there to ensure our freedom (in as much as is possible, making sure that one person's freedom does not infringe too much on another's), or should their focus be more on caring for the welfare of the people...trying to meet their other needs first?

Freedom is not possibly granted to all citizens. There is no way. The government would cease to exist if freedom was granted to all citizens. The role of government is to ensure that freedoms do not get in the way with the basic welfare of citizens. If everyone was free & there were no laws to regulate then people would not be able to take care of themselves. They would have no way to raise money or even the most basic of laws to protect themselves. The role of government is to ensure the welfare of citizens first and foremost and worry about their freedoms later.

I completely disagree.

There is absolutely no law of nature that says that a human society cannot be organised along authoritarian principles. Freedom and democracy as we understand it are very recent innovations in human history, and who knows what form they may take in the future.

Thus no government has an automatic duty to provide for the freedom of its citizens, but it may choose to carry that burden at its discretion.

The conventional role of a government, as seen through history, is to provide for the welfare of its citzens. This can take the forms of creating the right security environment, ie safety from other societies, aiding in the management of housing and agriculture (it is not in the interests of a society to have the crops fail and the people starve), etc.

We have to ask ourselves, why did complex societies form in the first place? The answer is for mutual protection from the hazards of the environment. Government exists to bring order to such efforts, the guaranteeing of freedom is a modern luxury.

Germany was in ruins and the people were upset,
Full of hunger and crime and unemployed vets,
People wanted things to be just like old times,
And Adolf Hitler said, I'll make it fine,

World War II that is,
The sequal without equal,

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

China - steady economic growth, slow, gradual movment towards democracy.
Russia - massive economic contraction, tree of liberty fails to take root.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Liberty and welfare are ying and yang.

I completely disagree.

There is absolutely no law of nature that says that a human society cannot be organised along authoritarian principles. Freedom and democracy as we understand it are very recent innovations in human history, and who knows what form they may take in the future.

Democracy yes, freedom however was a constant before politics itself.

Thus no government has an automatic duty to provide for the freedom of its citizens, but it may choose to carry that burden at its discretion.

The conventional role of a government, as seen through history, is to provide for the welfare of its citzens. This can take the forms of creating the right security environment, ie safety from other societies, aiding in the management of housing and agriculture (it is not in the interests of a society to have the crops fail and the people starve), etc.

And yet throughout history, many governments have not at all chosen to carry the similar 'burden' of providing any kind of 'welfare' to it's citizens. In fact, several famous and many non famous governments have chosen instead to simply eliminate it's citizens en masse or individually. So much for conventional roles.

No government has an automatic duty to do anything at all. Governments are not accountable to anyone except those in power.

We have to ask ourselves, why did complex societies form in the first place? The answer is for mutual protection from the hazards of the environment.

I disagree, they formed because of the agricultural revolution and the resulting cities and settlements. When you place humans in unnaturally close quarters in unnaturally large numbers, the 'hazards of the environment' are actually the hazards of civilization itself.

As a Communist I would eventually like to see a society where the existence of any form of government is unnecessary but until this has been achieved I believe its role must be to protect both the welfare and freedom of its citizens.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that
they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that
among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.— That to
secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their
just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form
of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the
People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its
foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to
them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

All there is to it.

I found a fantastic quote in the Utilitarianism versus Objectivism thread that I wanted people to read, and discuss...


Do you agree with this? Why or why not?
I couldn't say it any better than this:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

I found a fantastic quote in the Utilitarianism versus Objectivism thread that I wanted people to read, and discuss...

It is not the role of the government to provide for the welfare of its citizens. The role of the government is to provide for the freedom of its citizens.

Do you agree with this? Why or why not?

My problem with that is I see it as sideways.

Government is simply not in thge business of either, as it is unable to do either. It is supposed to be a means of protecting freedoms we already have which allow us to provide our own welfare, to the best of our ability. It cannot provide freedom (which we by nature already have) or welfare (which it neither posesses nor has the appropriate means to provide).

governments restrict peoples freedom in order to provide for their welfare.

with government you are no longer free to kill your neighbor, to steal from your neighbor, in some instances to fuck your neighbor.

you are restricted as to where you can live, what you can do with your wealth, in some cases what you can do with your own body.

in return you get the security of laws, infrastructure, basic support.

theres no extra freedom in it other than the freedom from worrying about lack of justice, food, education, etc.

The role of government isn't to provide freedom, but to protect it.

The role of government should be to defend the property and lives of its citizens from violence, fraud and theft. By not intervening in other ways, the government is a body which ensures freedom.

I think it is good for a government to provide welfare sometimes (it reduces poverty), but too much results in dependancy on the government, causing a lack of insentive to work. That's the effect communism had!

Assistance from the government is good in certain cases, but at the cost of freedom? We need to be less dependent on our government.

Government's only real duty is to provide for the safety of its citizens, from encroachment from without and from danger within.

Citizens are then free to decide what they want to do with their lives and how best to go about their rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

"The government that governs least governs best." Thomas Jefferson

The government is for protection. From other countries and from our own citizens. It also should eliminate oppression.

It needs to protect the freedom of life and liberty, and (in some respects) the pursuit of happiness (as long as it doesn't affect someone else).

There aren't really any other "rights"
We don't have any RIGHT to drive or to watch TV or whatever. We have the Three main rights. anything else is subject to those.

I found a fantastic quote in the Utilitarianism versus Objectivism thread that I wanted people to read, and discuss...


Do you agree with this? Why or why not?

I think VO is slightly off; I think the term 'welfare' in the context he's referring to means stuff like... well, welfare. A more accurate way of putting it would be: "It should not be within the government's pervue to direct lives; it's role should be to safeguard them."

The bone of contention, then, becomes the definition of 'safeguard' to which most of the Left would respond that this should mean preventing poverty and starvation, etc etc. Unfortunately, the only way to do this is to essentially direct the lives of others; to basically tell them that 20-40% of their time at work is actually being worked for others. Whether this is justified or not is more or less the basis for just about every disagreement I have with these folks.

I completely disagree.

There is absolutely no law of nature that says that a human society cannot be organised along authoritarian principles. Freedom and democracy as we understand it are very recent innovations in human history, and who knows what form they may take in the future.

Thus no government has an automatic duty to provide for the freedom of its citizens, but it may choose to carry that burden at its discretion.

The conventional role of a government, as seen through history, is to provide for the welfare of its citzens. This can take the forms of creating the right security environment, ie safety from other societies, aiding in the management of housing and agriculture (it is not in the interests of a society to have the crops fail and the people starve), etc.

We have to ask ourselves, why did complex societies form in the first place? The answer is for mutual protection from the hazards of the environment. Government exists to bring order to such efforts, the guaranteeing of freedom is a modern luxury.
I agree with you. Not that I like authoritarian governments, but governments were originally formed to provide collective welfare, such as defense and education.

But I also like freedom, so I think the gov should try to juggle the welfare and freedom of its citizens.

This model has worked out better in the past than the other two options.

I think the thing the Left likes to forget is that whether you work for a government or you work for Nike, you're still human; the same basic drives guide us in how we deal with reality and with other people. I'm wary of big government because it puts too much power in the hands of the people that are capable of throwing me in a cage: say what you will about corporate domination, it would not exist without a demand, and it could not thrive if it didn't have something of substance to offer. A government, on the other hand, has no competition and it can be allowed to stagnate.

Socialists like to claim that they represent an ideal balance between the two, but I have a number of problems with this ideology that I'm sure most of you have already seen.

I think it's the governments job to do both. More protecting freedoms than anything else, but I also see that keeping people healthy, and free of poverty is also in a modern governments to-do list. I think Britain had the right idea, and has since gotten a bit lost.

I think the thing the Left likes to forget is that whether you work for a government or you work for Nike, you're still human;
Stop it. The LEFT does not exist. There is no homogenous LEFT that thinks, eats, sleeps and shits the same way. Therefore the LEFT does no such thing. The LEFT is a myth.

You want to talk about trend among particular leftist political movements, then go hard. This rant is brought to you by coffee. It's in you.[/rant]

The purpose fo the goverment is to protect the weak from the strong. Sometimes this means welfare, and sometimes it means freedom.

Stop it. The LEFT does not exist. There is no homogenous LEFT that thinks, eats, sleeps and shits the same way. Therefore the LEFT does no such thing. The LEFT is a myth.
Um... some distinction needs to be made. I'm not saying they all think alike; I'm just making an observation based on the arguments I've seen from liberals, socialists, communists and the like.

Once you strip me of the ability to distinguish one political ideology or one group of political ideologies from the rest of the philosophical community, you're effectively stripping me [and, by extention, everyone else] of the ability to challenge them.

Um... some distinction needs to be made. I'm not saying they all think alike; I'm just making an observation based on the arguments I've seen from liberals, socialists, communists and the like.

Once you strip me of the ability to distinguish one political ideology or one group of political ideologies from the rest of the philosophical community, you're effectively stripping me [and, by extention, everyone else] of the ability to challenge them.

well said!

Um... some distinction needs to be made. I'm not saying they all think alike; I'm just making an observation based on the arguments I've seen from liberals, socialists, communists and the like.

Once you strip me of the ability to distinguish one political ideology or one group of political ideologies from the rest of the philosophical community, you're effectively stripping me [and, by extention, everyone else] of the ability to challenge them.
Given.

But then explain to me how you came to the conclusion that you did. What action/philosophy/rant gave rise to this interpretation of the 'left' view on humanity?

How can I counter challenge, when I have no inkling of how you arrived at that decision about a group I belong to?

And forgive me for my bitchiness. I'm trying to curb it, but today, I'm the one who's a bit unchained:). *that frickin' smiley hurt, so appreciate it, eh?*

As a Communist I would eventually like to see a society where the existence of any form of government is unnecessary but until this has been achieved I believe its role must be to protect both the welfare and freedom of its citizens.

I would eventually like to see frogs with wings so they wouldn't bump their ass when they jump...and machineguns for when snakes try to eat them.

What stops the frog from doing this, his inherent condition. Humans are greedy by nature and some fairy tale economic doctorine where jack booted thugs run the show until everyone stops being greedy is ridiculous.

But then explain to me how you came to the conclusion that you did. What action/philosophy/rant gave rise to this interpretation of the 'left' view on humanity?

To answer your first question; "By talking to them."

To answer the second, that's a bit harder. The terminology [as I'm sure you know] derives from the seating habits of members of French Parliament, so I can't really answer to it. I'm not trying to subsume all of your thoughts and opinions under $BANNER any more than anyone else is trying to do the same to me. For example, I designate myself as an "Objectivist" in only a nominal sense; I think it's safe to say that almost none of us agree 100% with any given philosophy, rather we form our own values and attempt to classify ourselves based on the content of these values.

We're all different people, of course, but as a species we've always had this odd fetish with classifying things and comparing them; it's more than likely that neither of us are exceptions on some level.

And forgive me for my bitchiness. I'm trying to curb it, but today, I'm the one who's a bit unchained:). *that frickin' smiley hurt, so appreciate it, eh?*
I think you of all people should be aware of the fact that I have no problem with 'bitchiness.' :D

To answer your first question; "By talking to them."

To answer the second, that's a bit harder. The terminology [as I'm sure you know] derives from the seating habits of members of French Parliament, so I can't really answer to it. I'm not trying to subsume all of your thoughts and opinions under $BANNER any more than anyone else is trying to do the same to me. For example, I designate myself as an "Objectivist" in only a nominal sense; I think it's safe to say that almost none of us agree 100% with any given philosophy, rather we form our own values and attempt to classify ourselves based on the content of these values.

We're all different people, of course, but as a species we've always had this odd fetish with classifying things and comparing them; it's more than likely that neither of us are exceptions on some level.
*is placated*
Okay then.

Since you're being so reasonable.

This is exactly why I refuse to be called socialist/communist/anarchist/leftist/whateverist.

I'm leftISH. But not on everything, at all times. Like right now. I think the death penalty for bothering me right now is reasonable. And yet, I normally wouldn't support that sort of thing.

*kills another coworker and stuffs her under the desk*

I couldn't say it any better than this:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Article 1 [Human dignity]

(1) Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority.

(2) The German people therefore acknowledge inviolable and inalienable human rights as the basis of every community, of peace and of justice in the world.

The role of government is to ensure that the ruling class remains the ruling class. Different countries do this in different ways. In the US (and other countries) the government allows for a large degree of freedom along with enough welfare so that people do not revolt against the government. Additionally, we are given the illusion of choice during our elections between democrats and republicans, between which there are only minor differences.

Socialists like to claim that they represent an ideal balance between the two, but I have a number of problems with this ideology that I'm sure most of you have already seen.
Who are you counting as socialists? Social democrats actually do represent an ideal balance between the two, but you'll find no such balance at your next Trotsky party meeting.

You logic is also flawed. There is a demand for government; if there was none it would not exist. It was created, depending on where you live, to ensure the collective welfare/security/freedom/whatever of the people which it governs.

If you're going to use an emotive image like "throwing me in a cage", in a corporate-dominated world they could throw you in a cage if it were in their interests. The only reason they can't now is because the government has a monopoly on imprisonment.

I support social/personal freedoms such as choice in abortion, gay marriage, freedom of speech and religion etc. In that sense of freedom it's easy to run alongside with welfare. In economic freedom, a balance is best but I rank fair treatment and aims to be rid of the huge wealth division that exists as higher priorities than "economic freedom".

Well me thinks, the government should ensure the basic needs for its citizens as well as their (other) rights, which include freedom of course.
Freedom is a basic need.

The government should have no problem supplying both since one doesn't necessarily hamper the other.

In economic freedom, a balance is best but I rank fair treatment and aims to be rid of the huge wealth division that exists as higher priorities than "economic freedom".
I agree.

I agree with you. Not that I like authoritarian governments, but governments were originally formed to provide collective welfare, such as defense and education.

But I also like freedom, so I think the gov should try to juggle the welfare and freedom of its citizens.

This model has worked out better in the past than the other two options.
a good government takes away the least amount of freedom and maximizes the welfare of its people. it has to be a juggling act since there are so many (295million or so) conflicting interests at stake.

Who are you counting as socialists? Social democrats actually do represent an ideal balance between the two, but you'll find no such balance at your next Trotsky party meeting.
Ideal balance my foot; I think we both realize I most empathetically beleive this is not the case. I could argue with you about the reasons for this for hours; and given that I've done so a number of times already I'd basically just be restating myself [and we probably wouldn't change each others' minds anyway], I'm not interested in this particular discourse.

You logic is also flawed. There is a demand for government; if there was none it would not exist. It was created, depending on where you live, to ensure the collective welfare/security/freedom/whatever of the people which it governs.
My logic is not flawed; I never said there was no such thing as a demand for government. Government is a necessity for the maintenance of order; a lot of people mistake me for an anarchist because I favor the rights of the individual, but I don't believe anarchists are true individualists anyway.

If you're going to use an emotive image like "throwing me in a cage", in a corporate-dominated world they could throw you in a cage if it were in their interests. The only reason they can't now is because the government has a monopoly on imprisonment.
Right. These are the facts. Bush can ship me to Guantanamo Bay but DuPont can't. Should they ever develop this power, my hostility towards them will increase exponentially. But right now, I'm interested in dealing with reality, not with what might happen in some other world.

Th role of government is to make sure voluntary contracts are honoured and law. The wording of the second option was a bit odd.

The role of government is to protect its people.

It's been that way since the start of tribes! ;)

If the role of government was to ensure freedom then the perfect form of government would be one without laws, taxes or any kind of influence on the general population.

Not at all, there are hindrances to freedom that exist free of government that government must protect the people against.

I guess it depends on what you mean by freedom. For some, freedom would mean the freedom to do whatever you please, and for others it would mean the freedom to be free from fear, hunger and so on...

The latter freedom you are mentioning is not freedom at all, it is safety.

By that definition, if you are not allowed to drive or ride in a car, you could say that you were free from car wrecks, but it is only because you are not free to use a car.

Safety is always insured by limiting freedom, so in my opinion the two roles of government are contradictory.

Presumably education improves my choices in life and thus my freedom, so wouldn't public education, which is welfare, improve my freedom?

You are correct that public education does provide for the freedom of the individual, by allowing them the same opportunities as the rest of society. However, it is only welfare when it is not applied universally. Welfare provides a safety net for the poor of society at the expense of the wealthy, while a universal education system should offer everyone, wealthy and poor the same government benefits.

I agree with you. Not that I like authoritarian governments, but governments were originally formed to provide collective welfare, such as defense and education.


I disagree with both you and Tactical Grace. I believe that the initial governments were organizations formed to protect the markets created when agriculture and specialisation took hold in civilization.