Role of Government

[gojujay]

Looking for thoughts on the actual ROLE of government. What do you think are the responsibilities of the Federal government? I did a Forum search and this specific subject wasn't mentioned. Feel free to include your party affiliation, if any, in your replies. This is opinion only, don't feel hampered by your understanding of the Constitution. I suppose this is like your political philosophy.

I'll be lurking...

[Epee_Pox]

In a free society, the role of government is to perform those functions necessary to the continuation of the society, which functions cannot be performed individually. In so doing, government earns the right to levy taxes on the citizenry to pay for these functions. Each level of government (town, county, state, nation) represents an additional layer of responsibility.

In other words, town government does what the individual person cannot do, such as put up street lamps on all the streets. County government does what the individual town cannot do, such as administer reservoirs. State government does what the individual county cannot do, such as fund public universities. And the national government does what the individual state cannot do, such as provide national defense.


Of course, a free society is not the only kind out there. There are any number of societies in which government exists to rule the citizenry. In the extreme, this manifests itself as tyranny, dictatorship, monarchy and theocracy. In such extreme cases, the government dictates all that citizens may do, and is the source of all that they have. In less-extreme instances, government exists to enact and enforce the ever-growing rules of society and to ensure a living and a standard of living for the citizenry. The ruler-subject mindset is still there, just in a way that appears more enlightened. Any modern European nation would be a typical example.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Should this not go to the politics board?

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Soldier]

I agree with Epee Pox wholeheartedly. The key is in what you decide the individual is incapable of doing.

The government should keep its hands off as much as possible, I think. No legislation concerning marriage (NOT a government concern), etc. The government should put together a military, but not try to run it. Control it, yes. Tell it when and where to act, yes. But let the military actually run itself once it's there.

Collect taxes as necessary, in order to be able to function, but keep functions to a minimum, so that taxes can be kept to a minimum. And everyone in government remotely affiliated with the tax code should be legally required to fill out their own taxes.

[mrbiggs]

Government's sole responsibility is to keep its people happy.

All other responsibilities are derived from that.

[Epee_Pox]

Government's sole responsibility is to keep its people happy.

All other responsibilities are derived from that.

And here we see an example of the dangers of being glib.

I can be a despotic tyrant and keep my people happy by providing them with free food, sex, drugs and entertainment; by carefully controlling access to information and ideas; and by equally carefully removing those who are either not happy or pose a threat to the general happiness. But I doubt that MrBiggs would agree that this would be a responsible form of government.

I think we would both agree that government should protect the individual's ability to seek happiness. And in fact, that is one of the founding principles of the US system of government. Government can protect the ability to seek happiness by making sure that opportunities are not unfairly withheld, by protecting people from threats to their life liberty and property, etc.

But for government to ensure the individual's happiness would be a fool's errand at best -- impossible to accomplish and not at all the job of government in the first place.

[mrbiggs]

I think that an OUTSIDER would not like that form of government, but the citizens under it surely would. If you asked them questions, they would tell you how great their leader was, and how he was a gift to them and their generation.

And if he had to remove the people who disagreed with his ideas, then many of the people wouldn't be happy.

I think that the "despotic tyrant" would not be able to keep his people happy, because he's a despotic tyrant. But if he WAS able to keep his citizens happy, then I don't see what the problem would be.

[gojujay]

Hi!

Should this not go to the politics board?

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

The politics board covers only 2004. This gets down to the nitty gritty.

[Soldier]

The problem, Mr. Biggs, lies in the mechanics. How do you provide people all the time with all the things to make them happy? You would need to have all sorts of free things, for all the different preferences. Food, cars, sex, guns, for all different kinds of people. How do you pay for those? Spoils of war, or funded by taxes. Either way, people won't be happy because they'll have to go to war, or have to pay taxes. Maybe both. Anyway, my point is that the government can't keep the people happy. All it can do is keep them safe and free, and let the people keep themselves happy.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

The problem, Mr. Biggs, lies in the mechanics. How do you provide people all the time with all the things to make them happy? You would need to have all sorts of free things, for all the different preferences. Food, cars, sex, guns, for all different kinds of people. How do you pay for those? Spoils of war, or funded by taxes.

This has been done in history.

1. Ancient Rome. Being the by far strongest military power around, they could go to war with inpunity and take home the spoils of war, including female slaves to take care of the sex part.

2. Various warring tribes in Europe before 1000 AD. War was considered a good thing in and of itself, so less problems getting warriors.

3. Present-day Saudi Arabia and Nauru. No aggressive wars, and very low taxes. The goodies are paid for by abundance of natural resources (bird dung, in the latter case) and an entire country can behave like a trust fund kid. In Saudi, the tyranny parts of the previous description also apply. In Nauru, the large resources go to food gorging. A nation going from starvation-is-an-everpresent-threat to a state where virtually everyone is obese, and most grownups have diabetes in a generation.

So, that posited hypthetical case has existed in reality.

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[damion18d]

Government's sole responsibility is to keep its people happy.

All other responsibilities are derived from that.

This is the kind of thinking that leads to apathy. Look at the tattered state of our welfare system. Speak to many people on those programs you may be surprised to find out that you owe them. We have entire generations of families that think it's the government's responsibility to do everything for them. I know you used Govt in a general sense, but in our Govt you only have the right to persue happiness. If you don't work to earn it I say sod off.

[Soldier]

Perhaps on the small scale, as the tribes you described, Peter. I don't know anything about this country of Nauru. But somebody always has to pick up the bill. Do you not think there were significant portions of Rome that were quite unsatisfied with the empire, but too afraid of the Prætorian to say anything? And what of Saudi Arabia's women?

[mrbiggs]

A few things about my little theory.

1. The government's job is only to maximize the people's overall happiness through its actions. It does not have to agressively force it on people. Which makes you happier, free drugs and entertainment, or the ability to chose and buy your own entertainment? I think that this goal does not lead to a totalitarian government, but rather a democracy.

2. Welfare does not fufill the happiness of the people. Go into a part of some large city where most of the people are on welfare, and look around. Tell me whether they're happy or not. Nobody enjoys welfare. The third-generation welfare families are caused by laziness, not content.

[Soldier]

Look at your own story, then: Welfare doesn't make people happy. So what makes you think the free provision of any other amenity will make people happy? Why should drug handouts work any better than monetary handouts?

[esskreemr]

This is the kind of thinking that leads to apathy. Look at the tattered state of our welfare system. Speak to many people on those programs you may be surprised to find out that you owe them. We have entire generations of families that think it's the government's responsibility to do everything for them.

Wow, that's a new one. Are you arguing that poor people are poor because they are lazy?

Have you personally interviewed hundreds of welfare families or are you just parroting someone else? What do you qualify as many? 1 out of 10 (10%), 1 out of 1000?

Perhaps it's the way you would phrase the question: I've worked since I was 14. I actually worked before that but 14 was the first time I was required to pay taxes. I have never been on welfare, but if I ever lose my job, I think that it shouyld be there. So yes, in a way, I feel that the government owes me...

I agree wholeheartedly that welfare reform needs to break the cycle of the welfare family, but to categorically lump everyone who recieves welfare as lazy moochers is beyond fascist...

[scrapinpeg]

...but to categorically lump everyone who recieves welfare as lazy moochers is beyond fascist...

Are you sure that's the right word? Fascism is a totalitarian philosophy of government where (among other, non-pertinent characteristics) the state has control over every aspect of life, much like the philosophy underlying the welfare state. And it is well-documented that, for people who grow up with their livelihood, housing, food and medicine provided for by the government, there is a general tendency to expect the government to do things for them that most people would expect to do for themselves. It is not uncommon for a woman to call the police to make her son clean his room or go to school (to be told that's not their job). The expectation that the government is responsible for practically everything is very compatible with the fascist philosophy.

[damion18d]

A few things about my little theory.

1. The government's job is only to maximize the people's overall happiness through its actions. It does not have to agressively force it on people. Which makes you happier, free drugs and entertainment, or the ability to chose and buy your own entertainment? I think that this goal does not lead to a totalitarian government, but rather a democracy.

2. Welfare does not fufill the happiness of the people. Go into a part of some large city where most of the people are on welfare, and look around. Tell me whether they're happy or not. Nobody enjoys welfare. The third-generation welfare families are caused by laziness, not content.

Once a year I am required for my job to do an E.R. clinical rotation. These are usually done in major cities. To date I have worked in 3 hospitals in NYC in 2 different burrows, San Antonio, Houston, Miami, Charlotte, and L.A.. As anyone who has worked in govt or "free hospitals" as they are refered to by many, can tell you, you see a great cross-section of humanity in an E.R.. My working on these people puts me in a unique place to learn things about their lives. In each and everyone of these hospitals about 90% of the patients are on govt assistance. I have seen 28Y/0 mothers of 10 walk in, in jewelry and 120 dollar tennis shoes with children with no shoes dirty clothes and malnurished. These people have no shame will tell you straight out that their kids are a means to an end. Each one means a larger welfare check. More food stamps to be sold for 60 cents on the dollar to the local hustler. This is not an isolated case I have seen this on many occasions. I have had people snidely thank me for having a job so they didn't have to. I have listened to diatribes about how it's the govts responsibility to pay them for nothing. Mind you that many of the people wrapped in the warmth of the welfare system don't need it. Corruption of the system in major cities costs millions a year. ODB a rapper living in NYC Harlem, when his album was at the top of the charts was collecting a welfare check and foodstamps. He was arrested picking up a check his limo was impounded. Many people who are bleeding this system dry live and die by the idea that it is the govt's responsibility to make them happy and take care of them. It become a mindset passed from one welfare family down to the children and through the community.

[damion18d]

Wow, that's a new one. Are you arguing that poor people are poor because they are lazy?

Have you personally interviewed hundreds of welfare families or are you just parroting someone else? What do you qualify as many? 1 out of 10 (10%), 1 out of 1000?

Perhaps it's the way you would phrase the question: I've worked since I was 14. I actually worked before that but 14 was the first time I was required to pay taxes. I have never been on welfare, but if I ever lose my job, I think that it shouyld be there. So yes, in a way, I feel that the government owes me...

I agree wholeheartedly that welfare reform needs to break the cycle of the welfare family, but to categorically lump everyone who recieves welfare as lazy moochers is beyond fascist...

No I am not trying to make a broad sweeping generalization, but there is a large section of people collecting money that you and I pay in taxes that don't deserve it. Think about it they pay so much out that they can't afford to pay people to properly oversee it. If we could properly regulate welfare I guarentee there would not be so many people on it. But the welfare system doesn't have it in their budget to investigate habitual abusers.

Yes I have spoken with literally thousands of welfare recipients and it is the needle in the haystack that seems truley deserving in my experience.

I'm with you. I had my first job at 12 and have had a job ever since. At many times I have had 2 or 3 jobs. If the worst of the worst happen the magical whatever came and took everything away from me yes I would expect a crutch to help me up, but that's the difference I don't want that to be my lifestyle and would soon find my hard work bringing me back out. And BTW that's not the govt oweing you. You paid into the system. It's like insurance you pay to cover your arse come the worst. It gets fixed and you're back up. I pose the question to you. You lose everything you go on welfare. Is that the end of your story is that your life forever? There are people on that system for years and years who have never had a job a day in thier miserable existance do they deserve your share of the insurance?