NationStates Jolt Archive

What is, in your opinion, the goal of a government - any government, be it a democratic, gynecocratic or totalitarian one?

What is, in your opinion, the goal of a government - any government, be it a democratic, gynecocratic or totalitarian one?
The first and prImary objective of any government should be to protect its citizens.

The role of the government is to protect it's citizen's intests at home or abroad, provide for their defence, promote social equality, provide relief in disaster or catastrophe, regulate trade, regulate international treaties, etc. The list truly is to long to inclde all aspects of governemnt. I think the big question is why we as people consent to be governed. That is more a question of social contract theory rather than politics. We allow a government to preside for those things i just mentioned. They regulate commons (EG wildlife and fisheries, gasoline, etc) and protect (@ least according to the constitution of the united states) our life, liberty, and proptery.

What is, in your opinion, the goal of a government - any government, be it a democratic, gynecocratic or totalitarian one?
Government is an organization of people to support all the people within the borders of a country. Their goal is to achieve that support in the most efficient and cost-effective manner.

Ok, so those three posts are good examples of PC explanations. :)

Any other theories? How about a theocracy? Surely the purpose of a government depends on its political system?

I agree with the others as to what a good, properly-functioning government's purpose is.

However, some governments fail miserably at it, or distort how they do it to such a point that they end up doing what is later seen as evil. And then there's crooked governments, where there doesn't seem to be a true "governmental goal" so much as a desire of its individual members to make themselves rich.

A properly-functioning government may indeed have other *goals,* like taking over places, or stamping out competing idiologies. But, those goals would usually fall under the bigger umbrella of trying to strengthen the nation, which leads back to improving life or increasing security for at least some class of its citizens.

In a theocracy, I would think it'd really boil down to the same things. The theocrats would most likely expand the "protection" part to include protecting its citizens from heathen/infidel influences, going to hell or its equivalent, temptations, and other things considered bad by their religion, whatever their religion may be. And, they likely think they have a divine mandate to govern.

Some professor I had said that there are people who say that a government's purpose is basically to keep their people from killing each other! But, that'd actually be "domestic protection..."

The role of a government is to organize the people of a country by passing and enforcing laws.

The duty of a government is to define and protect the rights of it's citizens.

To stay in power for as long as possible power and make as much money as possible.

You know its true.

The central role of government is to maintain society, the best way to do that is where all of the diffences are.

The idea that government is there to help strikes me as wishful thinking. The real purpose of government is just to satisfy the powerhunger of those in it.

the purpose of any state or state-like system (aka 'government', though it may be possible to have government that isn't state-like) is to serve as a means to increase and consolidate the power of an elite minority and to allow a massive redistribution of resources from people in general to that elite.

they like to claim that it's about safety for its citizens/subjects/slaves, and to a certain extent it does have to provide defense against other states that those people do benefit somewhat from. but the reason for having that military power is to ensure the survival of the elite and their power and privilege - as well as to expand both when possible - any benfits to the citizens/subjects/slaves are of secondary importance at best. and, of course, it isn't the elite that does the dying while exercising it's use of force to expand its power and privilege. that falls to the non-elite (even in older warrior societies, the elites got the armor or the horses or the real weapons, and spent their battles moving down people).

The duty of a government is to define and protect the rights of it's citizens.

Going back to Social Contract Theory, the real question is why do we submit to be governed . It seems quite infintile to say we give up personal rights and freedoms to be governed, so that this government can define our freedoms and protect them. The Cheif concern of any government is protection of its populous and provide security... im not talking about protection or rights, or health care...but protection from outside threats to the physical person and property. These are the CHIEF concerns of any government. All other concerns come secondary, as without security all other concerns become inconsequencial.

the purpose of any state or state-like system (aka 'government', though it may be possible to have government that isn't state-like) is to serve as a means to increase and consolidate the power of an elite minority and to allow a massive redistribution of resources from people in general to that elite.

they like to claim that it's about safety for its citizens/subjects/slaves, and to a certain extent it does have to provide defense against other states that those people do benefit somewhat from. but the reason for having that military power is to ensure the survival of the elite and their power and privilege - as well as to expand both when possible - any benfits to the citizens/subjects/slaves are of secondary importance at best. and, of course, it isn't the elite that does the dying while exercising it's use of force to expand its power and privilege. that falls to the non-elite (even in older warrior societies, the elites got the armor or the horses or the real weapons, and spent their battles moving down people).

Awesome! I couldn't have said it any better myself.

the purpose of any state or state-like system (aka 'government', though it may be possible to have government that isn't state-like) is to serve as a means to increase and consolidate the power of an elite minority and to allow a massive redistribution of resources from people in general to that elite.

they like to claim that it's about safety for its citizens/subjects/slaves, and to a certain extent it does have to provide defense against other states that those people do benefit somewhat from. but the reason for having that military power is to ensure the survival of the elite and their power and privilege - as well as to expand both when possible - any benfits to the citizens/subjects/slaves are of secondary importance at best. and, of course, it isn't the elite that does the dying while exercising it's use of force to expand its power and privilege. that falls to the non-elite (even in older warrior societies, the elites got the armor or the horses or the real weapons, and spent their battles moving down people).

However a pessimistic view of government this maybe, there is some ring of truth and so I can help put it into perspective. If we take from Hobbes theory, that elite is the most qualified to lead us, given the very fact that they are elite and drew power enough to rise above the masses. Taking into account reality, the masses themseves are largely ignorant to real events too concerned with their everyday meanial lives. Their mere struggle for survival leave them little time to contomplate things like international trade, GDP growth, international politics, the intricacies of law etc. And so it seems quite resonable to entrust those not burdened with the struggle of life to take on these complex and time consuming issues leaving the everday person to live their lives without concern (and a little safter at the same time). And the elite of course should seek to maintain that power as it is them who allow the system to move fluidly, providing protection and governance at the same time. So we should put our trust in a ruling elite as if the government fails, they will have the most to lose. Not the average peasent who has nothing in the first place

Taking into account reality, the masses themseves are largely ignorant to real events too concerned with their everyday meanial lives. Their mere struggle for survival leave them little time to contomplate things like international trade, GDP growth, international politics, the intricacies of law etc.
Which was very nice in Hobbes' times, but in a modern developed society the peasantry has the time to ponder about foreign trade, GDP growth, law, etc. Furthermore, since most modern developed societies are democracies, that peasantry has some say in who the elite is. Given this, it's not convenient that they should remain ignorant or removed from those concerns.

Yet they still are. Go figure, eh?

Which was very nice in Hobbes' times, but in a modern developed society the peasantry has the time to ponder about foreign trade, GDP growth, law, etc. Furthermore, since most modern developed societies are democracies, that peasantry has some say in who the elite is. Given this, it's not convenient that they should remain ignorant or removed from those concerns.

Yet they still are. Go figure, eh?

but like the change from hobbes time, as the overal education of the populace has grown, so has the complexity of things like economics and politics in the world. As the common man may like to ponder things like GPD growth and freign trade, he is scarely able to properly file personal tax claims or make their way through their own financial documents. These topics are still far beyond the reach of the average citizen, and as such are still better placed in the hands of an elite. Perhaps with a far more educated base, we could look toward a decentralization of authority. Only making this case more difficult are those who while scoffing at the idea that we need an elite to run our government, they hold the hands of the majority of less fortunate souls always lending the hand out while never offering the hand up. It is these efforts (while all with good intention) which make the system we have in place nessesary

What is, in your opinion, the goal of a government - any government, be it a democratic, gynecocratic or totalitarian one?
Do you mean the "ideal" role of government or the REAL goal of government?

The REAL goal of any government is twofold:

(1) To stay in Power.
(2) To increase in size to facilitate #1 without having to resort to violence (where they may lose power if a revolution occurs)

This is why Governments tend to become more Socialistic over time. To increase in size they must take more and more control of things, thereby making more and more people "employees" of (or at least beholden to) the government.

Anything a government may do in regards to the "ideal" role will be done with #1 & #2 firmly in mind.

Perhaps with a far more educated base, we could look toward a decentralization of authority.

not if we leave the elite in charge in the mean time. no matter how educated people become, the elite will work to ensure that they make things 'too complex for the simple peasants to understand'. these things aren't complex because they need to be. they've been made complex because it disempowers non-elites. why are laws written in legalese, why do courts require people to engage in arcane procedures? not because of anything inherent to writing a law or engaging in legal reasoning - in fact, they would be better served if they didn't bother with the needless forms as there would be less confusion about whether you were breaking the law or not.

there is no inherent need for the overall running of life to be any more complex than it ever was. we already have specialists that handle the details for the elites anyway (the managerial class and academia) where there actually is any more complexity - but the elites still run the show. there will never be a time when the elites decide that it is time to step down and let elite rule wither away. this isn't about benefitting anyone but them, and it's been working for them for 10,000 years. the only time they even bother with pretending like they care about the rest of us is when there are real threats to their power.

elites aren't smarter than the rest of us. they aren't even more knowledgeable - come on, you've seen the idiot things they say and do. they have gotten good at manipulating the system to benefit themselves, and squabbling amongst their own factions for who gets what slice of the pie. but we don't need them and never have. they need us.

However a pessimistic view of government this maybe, there is some ring of truth and so I can help put it into perspective. If we take from Hobbes theory, that elite is the most qualified to lead us, given the very fact that they are elite and drew power enough to rise above the masses. Taking into account reality, the masses themseves are largely ignorant to real events too concerned with their everyday meanial lives. Their mere struggle for survival leave them little time to contomplate things like international trade, GDP growth, international politics, the intricacies of law etc. And so it seems quite resonable to entrust those not burdened with the struggle of life to take on these complex and time consuming issues leaving the everday person to live their lives without concern (and a little safter at the same time). And the elite of course should seek to maintain that power as it is them who allow the system to move fluidly, providing protection and governance at the same time. So we should put our trust in a ruling elite as if the government fails, they will have the most to lose. Not the average peasent who has nothing in the first place

Is Bush a Nietzschean übermensch?

The purpose of government should be to protect its citizens from aggression from their fellows (criminals) oor foriegners (invaders). In addition, the government should mediate disputes and provide certain voluntary financial programs (Insurances of various types).
What actually happens is that government will pursue power at all costs, and one of the fastest ways to get power is through buying it so we have redistribution off wealth, grants, corporate welfare, etc. This is really good for government, because it lets the leaders raise taxes, sapping cash flow from the individual, and making them even more reliant on the powers that be.

To prepare for the coming of the Chaos Bringer.

the role of the government is to:

1) govern the nation e.g. set tax rates, tell police what to do

2) look after the nation and its interests to its best ability whether it be creating an empire or creating peace (people are just the wheels which make the nation move)

3) keep citizens in order, happy and above all else not killing each other

of course everyone’s idea of what a government should do is different depending on there up/down views (that means there libertarian/authoritarian views)