What should be the purpose of the Government?

One of the biggest questions thorough history is, what should the Government do? Which should be their limits? Should there be one at all? Your answer tells a lot about your ideology.

In my case, I believe Government should be more open to citizen control by encouraging political participation. It should be able to regulate the market and redistribute wealth to help the worse-off with a welfare net. It should also make sure that the playing field is not tilted in favour of richer people, at least in regards to public services. And should not have any relationship with any sort of religion of any kind.

Your ideas?

I think the government should have very specific tasks. Essentially, it should only protect individuals from other individuals infringing upon their rights. Specifically, it should only serve to protect individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud. Anything more than that is too much, IMO. In layman's terms, I think it should be as small as possible, and for the most part have as little role in people's lives as possible.

I'm against the idea of it making sure that things aren't "tilted" towards the rich because doing that requires taking more from the rich than from the poor, which imo is unfair in itself.

There's also functions that the government should serve like infrastructure and defense. And to an extent I think the welfare safety net should exist, but I think it should be reserved for people who are legitimately incapable of working (e.g. in the case of a debilitating injury or illness). But in general I believe that the bigger the government, the smaller the individual. Functions I'm against are progressively taxing, and just the whole idea that the government should take people's money and spend it on their behalf. I think most people know better than the government how to spend their own money.

I believe that the government should be a tool of the people, and not the politicians pushing their own personal or religious agendas. For example, when dealing with same-sex marriage, most opponents are those who believe that the US is a Christian country, despite everyone having religious freedom, plus the fact that it had been reaffirmed by John Adams in the Treaty of Tripoli.

The government should be make it to where everyone has a right to the exact same things, and anyone who tries to deny someone the same rights they have should be punished. If any official tries to change a law, it should be with the consent of everyone in their area, not on their own. Those who oppose a change should have significant evidence of how the proposed change is bad, and if they fail to do so, then the change should take place, majority or not.

Its not like this would be that difficult to do, either. All that the government would have to do is mail out a letter to everyone that has the list of issues being presented, and ask that they reply with what they believe. Town meetings would be another great way to do this. Letting a bunch of officials vote to decide if something should be on the ballot before the public see it is wrong. Look at what is going on in Indiana. The GOP is so hellbent on getting same-sex marriage banned there that they are actually REPLACING the opponents of the bill with those who are for it! That is corruption in its purest form! That is not how things should be run, and those responsible for it should be punished and have their organization disbanded.

The government makes decisions for the public in a public context, and as such should represent the will of the public. Since the government is the only legitimate body capable of organization and coordination in a public context, it should use its ability to collect and manage resources to make collective undertakings. Consequently, I believe the government has a responsibility to develop the living standards of its people. Everybody has a responsibility to the government, just how everybody benefits from its existence. Some goals cannot be accomplished without treating people unequally (although that may be fair), and to a certain extent the ends justify the means.

The government is there to serve the people.

I can't actually think off the top of my head any who do so.

BlahISuck said:

The government makes decisions for the public in a public context, and as such should represent the will of the public. Since the government is the only legitimate body capable of organization and coordination in a public context, it should use its ability to collect and manage resources to make collective undertakings. Consequently, I believe the government has a responsibility to develop the living standards of its people. Everybody has a responsibility to the government, just how everybody benefits from its existence. Some goals cannot be accomplished without treating people unequally (although that may be fair), and to a certain extent the ends justify the means.

Click to expand...

I believe that all goals can be met without treating everyone unequally. Will both sides be happy with the outcome? No, but as they say, a compromise leaves a bad taste in everyone's mouth.

Well it all depends on how you define your goals and how you define "equally". If my goal was to ensure a minimum standard of living and my decision was to introduce progressive taxation, you could argue that it's treating people equally on the grounds of ensuring a minimum standard of living or it's treating different unequally because you're taxing people at different rates. You could argue that universal health care, while being equal, is actually unequal because I'd imagine the poor get sick more often than the rich and would get more out of its services. Most people simply define what they wish for in a way that doesn't offend others. People will use different conceptions of equality to prop up their own ideas and put down others. But I find it naive to begin with an assumption of equality, especially when its meaning is manipulated by people for their own purposes. The word "equal" has to be qualified before it is used meaningfully, otherwise it's just rhetoric.

The government should be there to monitor international affairs and then provide security for the people. The people should be able to have a say in what they want. And whatever the majority votes goes. It should act as a protection device and serve the people. Not have the power.

It should exist merely to maintain order, with order here meaning "not complete and total anarchy" rather than what most governments see order as meaning, that being "what we think people should and shouldn't be doing."

Provide an infrastructure for social everything and that's basically it. Kinda like Norway. Pay fair taxes, have excellent paychecks to afford said taxes, and get excellent benefits like health care, a proper education system, and hell, even government funded arts. Seriously, why can't the world be Norway?

To add on to my previous post, or perhaps summarize my views more succinctly:

The government protects our collective welfare. Nobody wins unless everybody wins. It should encourage people to thrive, and protecting rights is only one aspect of this goal.

BlahISuck said:

Nobody wins unless everybody wins.

Click to expand...

Is that really true though? I mean I'm under pretty bad times myself, but I'm pretty sure there's millions, if not tens of millions, of people who that has no effect on whatsoever.

zomgitscathy said:

Is that really true though? I mean I'm under pretty bad times myself, but I'm pretty sure there's millions, if not tens of millions, of people who that has no effect on whatsoever.

Click to expand...

It's a different attitude that embraces all the ways we are interconnected, instead of emphasizing on how individual and separate we are. If I am living a prosperous life then I may be winning, but I don't consider a society to be winning when we look at the inequality around us and not do anything about it because we claim that we have no obligation to. To the extent that people aren't living in a successful society, I wouldn't consider myself to be living in a successful society. So nobody wins unless everybody wins. It's a team effort.

I would say to provide protection to the people but not strangle the people with protection. Like Gay Marriage laws, I don't know if it was but since when would we have to legalize something that wasn't illegal in the first place? Marijuana, also happens to be an issue. The government has come to realize that there needs to be "products" to sell and produce for the market to help remove our debt. Legalizing Marijuana would put more jobs out there. Not just selling it at a store, but also like a farmer, shipper, and of course packaging. Not only would it promote jobs, it will reduce the drug violence related with Marijuana.
With Gay Marriages, like I said I don't know if it ever was illegal to begin with, but why make something illegal that happens in nature? It's like trying to put a tree in jail because it didn't create enough oxygen (something along the lines of that) or "shoot down" a cloud because it was part of a thunderstorm some odd miles away.

As for current, I watched (more like dad did and I over heard it) an announcement made by Obama to help schools, and other various public places, and raise the minimum wage to $10.10. He has the right idea when he backed it up. Give the people more money to buy necessities, when they have that they will spend on wants. To help improve the middle and lower class.
Obama so far has been the only president I have actually taken attention to and have seen him work his arse off for the people making it better. I just hope eventually (soon) the inequalities are disbanded and created equal, and the petty illegal things brushed away.

The government is here to help make society better and be able to maintain it that way while
trying to keep the peace and order of everything as to not degrade the quality of our community
any further, but if you have been paying attention enough times to know that the government
doesn't mean anything now except for a organization that just cares for the rest of the world
to the smallest extent but there are still good and not so corrupt officials, but since they are so
honest they can't cheat, and as much as they want to be able to win they can't because the
others would cheat.

The Government is supposed to support the people and provide service, the reason they get the
power they have now is because a majority of people trusted them enough to be able to help our
already messed up world.