NationStates Jolt Archive


What services should a government provide?

The Nazz
07-05-2006, 17:52
A lot of times, citizens of all countries say they have a right to a service, when I think what they really mean is that they feel the government ought to provide a service. I haven't gone into B0zzy's thread on "You do not have a right to a job," but I'm hazarding a guess that that's what he's talking about (and I'll probably agree up to a point).

So rather than talking about rights, how about we talk about what services you think government ought to provide for its citizens. Education? Health Care? National Defense? Public Services (police, fire protection)? Basic utilities (Water, electricity, communications)?

I'm going to try to put up a poll, but the last couple of times I've tried it, the server has futzed me. Carry on without me if I don't get the poll up. :D
Danmarc
07-05-2006, 17:55
The government should provide the bare minimum of services to keep a country from going into anarchy. Things like National Defense, health and food regulations, and a national (central) bank. These are pretty much it. The smaller the goverment the better, the Market can handle pretty much everything else.
[NS]Errinundera
07-05-2006, 17:56
A government should provide those services that its contituents want it to provide. That is the essence of democracy, I would have thought.
Thriceaddict
07-05-2006, 17:56
All mentioned in the poll and food and shelter.
Kzord
07-05-2006, 17:56
It's a case of whether you think its better to have competition or not. Making roads for example, is better done by the government, since there would be all kinds of crap going on if corporations were trying to buy land to make into roads, providing competing roads to the same places, etc. You wouldn't want the government making your clothes, on the other hand - just imagine what you might end up wearing!
ConscribedComradeship
07-05-2006, 17:57
Well, I picked everything apart from other, because I couldn't think of anything. But, unemployment benefits and other social welfare.
Greill
07-05-2006, 17:59
Optimally, the central government should directly manage only the following things.

Infrastructure
Law and Order
National Defense
Regulation of Money
Health and Food Regulations

Everything else should be in the hands of local government or privatized.
Ventinc
07-05-2006, 18:01
I picked everything, including other. I think a country should provide all of that (healthcare and education being free, btw) plus social welfare for those who need help, along with laws to provide worker's rights, fair wages, and in capitalist societies (I'd prefer socialist, however :P), limits on corperations. There are plenty more, but I can't think of 'em right now.
Vittos Ordination2
07-05-2006, 18:02
All above, plus judicial/arbitrative services and legal defense.
New Genoa
07-05-2006, 18:07
The government should provide everyone with:

public education
health care
roads
homes
welfare
worker's rights
poor rights
food
opinions for the unopinionated
money
children
spouses
weddings
pets
giant corporations for every man, woman, and child
vacation homes
vacation islands
tanks to
jet fighters
aircraft carriers
atomic weapons
sex
drugs
computers
manbearpigs
televisions
cable
satellite TV
planets
galaxies
God
plasma TVs
TFT monitors
X1900XTX vid cards
7900GTX vid cards
4 gigs of DDR800 mem
100TB of hard drive space
AMD 4800+ processors
Intel Conroe processors
laughter

that's about it. any further, and the government is babying the people too damn much.
Begoned
07-05-2006, 18:08
Errinundera']A government should provide those services that its contituents want it to provide. That is the essence of democracy, I would have thought.

I want the government to provide me with a satellite TV, a mansion, a swimming pool made of solid gold, 10 cows, etc. I'm sure many other people would like the government to provide them that, too. And since it's a democracy, I guess the government must provide those items, right?
Vittos Ordination2
07-05-2006, 18:09
The government should provide everyone with:

public education
health care
roads
homes
welfare
worker's rights
poor rights
food
opinions for the unopinionated
money
children
spouses
weddings
pets
giant corporations for every man, woman, and child
vacation homes
vacation islands
tanks to
jet fighters
aircraft carriers
atomic weapons
sex
drugs
computers
manbearpigs
televisions
cable
satellite TV
planets
galaxies
God
plasma TVs
TFT monitors
X1900XTX vid cards
7900GTX vid cards
4 gigs of DDR800 mem
100TB of hard drive space
AMD 4800+ processors
Intel Conroe processors
laughter

that's about it. any further, and the government is babying the people too damn much.


And the only one of those the gov't is actually good at providing is laughter.
Maraque
07-05-2006, 18:09
They should provide all of the above PLUS some.
Kinda Sensible people
07-05-2006, 18:13
Everything up there but "Police". Police, as they exist today, are mismanaged and broadly abused. A change in the balance and funding of the Police force, would make it a good thing, but "Police" as they exist today are just a means of control for the rich on the poor and not a force of protection.

Ideally, I would add Social Security and Short-term Welfare to that list.
Kleptonis
07-05-2006, 18:15
*snip*
sex
*snip*
I can't wait to see the government agency that provides that.
The Nazz
07-05-2006, 18:20
All above, plus judicial/arbitrative services and legal defense.
Good one. I'd forgotten that one completely.
The Nazz
07-05-2006, 18:23
I can't wait to see the government agency that provides that.
Nah, that's definitely something that the market ought to control. It's hard enough to get laid withut having to deal with the bureaucratic red tape.

"Excuse me, where can I get the multiple orgasm exception form?"

"Giving or receiving?"

"Giving."

"There's no form and you're a fucking liar besides. get out of here!"
Danmarc
07-05-2006, 18:23
I can't wait to see the government agency that provides that.

finally, my tax dollars going to good use....
Eutrusca
07-05-2006, 18:26
The Constitution of the United States of America

Preamble

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.
Maekrix
07-05-2006, 18:27
*snip*
sex
*snip*
I can't wait to see the government agency that provides that.

Actually, government controlled prostitution would probably bring in a rather large amount of revenue.
Chaosmanglemaimdeathia
07-05-2006, 18:27
Okay, in all honesty, nobody thinks there's a huge conflict of interest involved where the health care companies and hospitals are all owned by insurance companies?

Nationalized health care should be a top priority for any self-proclaimed "First World Country."
Kleptonis
07-05-2006, 18:28
Nah, that's definitely something that the market ought to control. It's hard enough to get laid withut having to deal with the bureaucratic red tape.

"Excuse me, where can I get the multiple orgasm exception form?"

"Giving or receiving?"

"Giving."

"There's no form and you're a fucking liar besides. get out of here!"
And then the regulations start coming in:

"The Department of Sex prides itself in maintaining the sexual health of its employees while providing sensual services to all citizens. In order to maintain this health and safety, we require all clients and employees to wear padded suits during their appointment, and may, at the most, sit next to each other and make vaguely suggestive glances. There will be a team of regulatory officials viewing your appointment at all times to ensure that no regulations are broken. Thank you, and we hope you enjoy your stay!"
The Nazz
07-05-2006, 18:29
The Constitution of the United States of America

Preamble

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.
Yes yes--but what do you think? After all, there's a lot of leeway and room for discussion under what constitutes providing for the common defense or promoting the general welfare. Get specific, man.
Eutrusca
07-05-2006, 18:30
All mentioned in the poll and food and shelter.
And therein lies the primary difference between you and me on this topic.

Allowing your government to provide cradle to grave food, clothing, shelter, etc., not only makes for a HUGE government ( with all the accompanying waste and corruption ), it also teaches people to become dependent on that same government for their basic needs. WTF ever happened to "I am responsible for my own welfare and the welfare of my family?" :headbang:
Solaris-X
07-05-2006, 18:30
The goverment should provide all this, also I belive they provide free education all the way thru college and free health care for all, and I belive the goverment should take a more active help in helping find people jobs that need it. What form of goverment is that socialist democracy?
Maekrix
07-05-2006, 18:31
And therein lies the primary difference between you and me on this topic.

Allowing your government to provide cradle to grave food, clothing, shelter, etc., not only makes for a HUGE government ( with all the accompanying waste and corruption ), it also teaches people to become dependent on that same government for their basic needs. WTF ever happened to "I am responsible for my own welfare and the welfare of my family?" :headbang:


Haha, thats because ThriceAddict is a commie :P (that was a joke, don't take offense, please..)
Eutrusca
07-05-2006, 18:32
Yes yes--but what do you think? After all, there's a lot of leeway and room for discussion under what constitutes providing for the common defense or promoting the general welfare. Get specific, man.
Basic services only: no free food, no free clothing, no free housing, no free healthcare, no freeloading of any sort. People have to be permitted to rise or fall on their own merits or what you wind up with isn't "people," but government supported sheep! :(
Eutrusca
07-05-2006, 18:33
Haha, thats because ThriceAddict is a commie :P (that was a joke, don't take offense, please..)
And this changes my post ... how??? :p
Maekrix
07-05-2006, 18:33
And this changes my post ... how??? :p


Doesn't at all. :D
New Genoa
07-05-2006, 18:33
The goverment should provide all this, also I belive they provide free education all the way thru college and free health care for all, and I belive the goverment should take a more active help in helping find people jobs that need it. What form of goverment is that socialist democracy?

All the way through college? So we should help slackers even more? It's bad enough tax dollars have to go to pay for the educations of kids who are practically retarded in high school, and now we're going to let them flood our colleges? :headbang:

The government's duties are the ones Vittos said, no more, no less.
[NS]Errinundera
07-05-2006, 18:35
And therein lies the primary difference between you and me on this topic.

Allowing your government to provide cradle to grave food, clothing, shelter, etc., not only makes for a HUGE government ( with all the accompanying waste and corruption ), it also teaches people to become dependent on that same government for their basic needs. WTF ever happened to "I am responsible for my own welfare and the welfare of my family?"

But isn't it up to the voters to decide? If they want a large government, good luck to them. If you prefer a individualistic world, good luck to you.
Maekrix
07-05-2006, 18:35
OH, by the way, all you people mentioning the government should support "free this, free that".

Its not free. The more you get for "free", the more you pay in something called "taxes". The government has to get its money from somewhere.
ConscribedComradeship
07-05-2006, 18:35
Basic services only: no free food, no free clothing, no free housing, no free healthcare, no freeloading of any sort. People have to be permitted to rise or fall on their own merits or what you wind up with isn't "people," but government supported sheep! :(

No free healthcare? :eek: Meritocratic failure shouldn't result in death.
Thriceaddict
07-05-2006, 18:35
And therein lies the primary difference between you and me on this topic.

Allowing your government to provide cradle to grave food, clothing, shelter, etc., not only makes for a HUGE government ( with all the accompanying waste and corruption ), it also teaches people to become dependent on that same government for their basic needs. WTF ever happened to "I am responsible for my own welfare and the welfare of my family?" :headbang:
I don't know. Maybe I threw it away with the 'go fuck yourself if you don't have a job' mentality?
New Genoa
07-05-2006, 18:37
OH, by the way, all you people mentioning the government should support "free this, free that".

Its not free. The more you get for "free", the more you pay in something called "taxes". The government has to get its money from somewhere.

If only liberals wanted an imperialist government that just plundered other countries...but alas.
Kanabia
07-05-2006, 18:38
No free healthcare? :eek: Meritocratic failure shouldn't result in death.

Of course it should. What better motivation to work harder is there than the threat of death?
New Genoa
07-05-2006, 18:38
No free healthcare? :eek: Meritocratic failure shouldn't result in death.

Equating no free health care with death is facetious. It makes the assumption that everyone who gets health care is on the verge of dying, when that simply isn't true.
ConscribedComradeship
07-05-2006, 18:40
Equating no free health care with death is facetious. It makes the assumption that everyone who gets health care is on the verge of dying, when that simply isn't true.

So you're saying that the government does have a duty to pay for all lifesaving healthcare?
New Genoa
07-05-2006, 18:40
Errinundera']But isn't it up to the voters to decide? If they want a large government, good luck to them. If you prefer a individualistic world, good luck to you.

What if the voters want a government that expels people on basis of race or segregates people on the same premise? Democracy is not the equivalent of liberty.
ConscribedComradeship
07-05-2006, 18:42
Of course it should. What better motivation to work harder is there than the threat of death?

Well, you're joking...but I'm poor at arguing against such things. I'll say that that is mean! :)
New Genoa
07-05-2006, 18:42
So you're saying that the government does have a duty to pay for all lifesaving healthcare?

Sure, if you can't afford it then why the hell not. I'm not going to be dogmatic in my libertarian convictions on this. And we need to be specific here: are we talking about first world or third world nations? Because I very much doubt the middle class better off first worlders really need all this government babying compared to people starving overseas who could use a helping hand.
The Nazz
07-05-2006, 18:43
Basic services only: no free food, no free clothing, no free housing, no free healthcare, no freeloading of any sort. People have to be permitted to rise or fall on their own merits or what you wind up with isn't "people," but government supported sheep! :(
You say it's free, but I don't look at it that way. I look at things like healthcare for all as a solid use of tax dollars--tax dollars we all put in, by the way, because the myth that some people don't pay taxes is just that--a myth. I think health care is one of those services that government can provide more efficiently than the private sector can, and certainly falls under the rubric of "promoting the general welfare."

As for free food, housing and the like, I'd like to keep that to a minimum but I believe there ought to be a social safety net for those who are unable to provide for themselves. I'm just not a heartless bastard, I guess.
ConscribedComradeship
07-05-2006, 18:45
Sure, if you can't afford it then why the hell not. I'm not going to be dogmatic in my libertarian convictions on this. And we need to be specific here: are we talking about first world or third world nations? Because I very much doubt the middle class better off first worlders really need all this government babying compared to people starving overseas who could use a helping hand.

The problem is, if the rich pay only for their own healthcare, then who pays for that of the poor?
America of Tomorrow
07-05-2006, 18:49
Now first please note that I'm young and pretty darn naive.

Anyway, I think the government doesn't really NEED to take care of its people - though it would be nice, but a big waste of money (for the time being, I guess, what with this war going on and the American gov't in debt and all) - but instead the people of the country should provide the services themselves. Ourselves.

All the government needs to do, service-related, is provide the education for us, so that then during/after school we can decide what we really wanna be when we grow up. We can work in people-run organizations (with some rules made by the government and some other complicated stuff that Idk how to explain), like police and firefighter orgs and all those. Even dentistry and doctors and stuff. All run by the people (with a little bit of government, but the gov't would just be like their "big brothers")...

And then everything would turn into an anarchy... and then there're huge protests against the gov't... and then a civil war...

But honestly I think there would be citizens who would volunteer to help out/work in those police and fire and maybe even social welfare things...

Gosh I dunno...

Someone explain to me why my opinions are wrong, please.
Kanabia
07-05-2006, 18:54
Well, you're joking...but I'm poor at arguing against such things. I'll say that that is mean! :)

Heh, I was only trying to get people to draw some of their own parallels there. :p
[NS]Errinundera
07-05-2006, 19:00
What if the voters want a government that expels people on basis of race or segregates people on the same premise? Democracy is not the equivalent of liberty.

My government (Australian) puts people, including children, behind razor wire if they seek political asylum. It's appalling but it's popular with voters.
Eutrusca
08-05-2006, 01:03
I don't know. Maybe I threw it away with the 'go fuck yourself if you don't have a job' mentality?
Nahh. It's right there in the box you keep labelled: "DANGER! Contents could result in personal responsibility. Not to be opened under any circumstances!"
Eutrusca
08-05-2006, 01:04
So you're saying that the government does have a duty to pay for all lifesaving healthcare?
Most already do, in one way or another.
Eutrusca
08-05-2006, 01:08
You say it's free, but I don't look at it that way. I look at things like healthcare for all as a solid use of tax dollars--tax dollars we all put in, by the way, because the myth that some people don't pay taxes is just that--a myth. I think health care is one of those services that government can provide more efficiently than the private sector can, and certainly falls under the rubric of "promoting the general welfare."

As for free food, housing and the like, I'd like to keep that to a minimum but I believe there ought to be a social safety net for those who are unable to provide for themselves. I'm just not a heartless bastard, I guess.
You're arguing two different things. I was speaking about universal health care, free food and housing for anyone who wants it, etc. I don't think that anyone should have to suffer if they're incapable of doing things on their own, but that's a very, very small minority of the population. Plus I think that the first line of assistance for anyone who can't support themselves should be the family, not the government.

So your calling me a "heartless bastard" doesn't hold much water, now does it! :p
German Nightmare
08-05-2006, 01:10
All of the above plus social security.
Vittos Ordination2
08-05-2006, 01:52
The better question is:

When or why should a government provide a public service?
The Nazz
08-05-2006, 02:19
You're arguing two different things. I was speaking about universal health care, free food and housing for anyone who wants it, etc. I don't think that anyone should have to suffer if they're incapable of doing things on their own, but that's a very, very small minority of the population. Plus I think that the first line of assistance for anyone who can't support themselves should be the family, not the government.

So your calling me a "heartless bastard" doesn't hold much water, now does it! :pHey man, you're the one who typed the words Basic services only: no free food, no free clothing, no free housing, no free healthcare, no freeloading of any sort. People have to be permitted to rise or fall on their own merits. That reads like you're saying that it doesn't matter whether or not you can handle it on your own.

But on my original point--what falls under the rubric of "promoting the general welfare" in your opinion? In my opinion, universal health care fits very well, as does social security.
Magdha
08-05-2006, 02:25
Government should provide:

A military
Police
Courts
Sel Appa
08-05-2006, 02:30
The government should provide the bare minimum of services to keep a country from going into anarchy. Things like National Defense, health and food regulations, and a national (central) bank. These are pretty much it. The smaller the goverment the better, the Market can handle pretty much everything else.
Oh sure, the market will certainly provide education and firefighters...
Holyawesomeness
08-05-2006, 03:16
Oh sure, the market will certainly provide education and firefighters...
Oh, it would but not in a quantity that would be desirable. There is a reason why we want the government to provide them. They have a big positive externality and as such the market would underproduce them. The free market is not the solution for everything which is opposite of what some people think.
The Nazz
08-05-2006, 03:21
Oh, it would but not in a quantity that would be desirable. There is a reason why we want the government to provide them. They have a big positive externality and as such the market would underproduce them. The free market is not the solution for everything which is opposite of what some people think.
I think Sel Appa wrote that with a thick layer of sarcasm. But you're right--in the past, both running water and fire protection were privately owned, and what that meant was that if you could afford it, you got cleaner water and fire protection, and if you didn't, you got shit in your water and your house burned down. Some things are too important to society as a whole to be left to the tender mercies of the free market.
Vetalia
08-05-2006, 03:32
All of them should be provided by government with the exception of health care. Health care is better off with a national health insurance program to cover the costs for the disadvantaged but still retaining the benefits of market-driven healthcare. Infrastructure should also be provided, perhaps with the exemption of electricity.

Deregulation has increased prices, but at the same time has helped spur conservation, distributed generation, and development of alternative energy sources; if prices were regulated, many of these projects would be rendered uneconomical and it would be a lot harder to transition away from fossil fuel power which has negative effects on the environment and power dependability.

Instead of regulation, need-based credits for electricity and heating are more beneficial as are massive subsidies for energy efficiency and alternative energy improvements (like rooftop solar panel systems) in low income areas. Additional ones are a good idea for fuel efficient vehicles and hybrids in low income areas. This would keep the benefits of deregulation (like slowing demand growth and keeping alternatives economical) but still keep prices manageable for poor consumers and would help improve energy efficiency and reduce pollution.
Holyawesomeness
08-05-2006, 03:40
I think Sel Appa wrote that with a thick layer of sarcasm. But you're right--in the past, both running water and fire protection were privately owned, and what that meant was that if you could afford it, you got cleaner water and fire protection, and if you didn't, you got shit in your water and your house burned down. Some things are too important to society as a whole to be left to the tender mercies of the free market.
I know, I was just being a bit anal.