What do you want from government?

[Foxfyre]

We got off track on Ravi's thread objecting to Obama being compared to Hitler, but there seemed to be some interest in the new topic, so I'm moving it here.

One of the comparisons was in tactics used by government to accomplish whatever goals the leadership might want to achieve. But whether such tactics are proper, appropriate, or inappropriate is often in our perspectives of what we think government should be, and what we do and do not want government to do for us or to us.

The question under discussion was this but does not necessarily have to be limited to this:

From your perspective, what IS the appropriate role of government in taking over and running private commerce and industry at any level or in any circumstances? What limits would you place on government's ability to tell you where you can and cannot work, what you are or are not allowed to earn, what kind of healthcare you are required to have, what sort of union you must belong to?

And add to that, from your perspective, what is the appropriate role of government in telling you how much you must or cannot save, how much interest you can or cannot earn, what you can and cannot invest or speculate in, what risks you are or are not allowed to take?

It would be helpful if Federal and State government distinctions would be made if you in fact think there are distinctions between Federal and State government.

 

[Oddball]

Protect peaceful people from force and fraud form within.

Protect national sovereignty from force from without.

End of list.

 

[B L Zeebub]

More and bigger government, plus 10 more bank holiday's and free sky diving lesson for seniors

 

[Foxfyre]

Protect peaceful people from force and fraud form within.

Protect national sovereignty from force from without.

End of list.

So you don't want any laws involving speed limits or which side of the road to drive on? Would you allow commerce and industry to be able to pollute the air, soil, water without restriction? Is there no room for the intent to promote the general welfare in such matters?

But while I think most Americans (including you) are probably in full agreement on those kinds of things, the others listed in the thread starter are a bit more complicated.

 

[veritas]

I think some limits need to be set regarding huge amounts of money and leverages and investment 'vehicles' that are deleterious to the system. Derivatives need to be regulated, stringently. They amount to a total system break down and the skimming of all the working capital. You can be as rich as you want, but when you corner the assets the game is over and the whole deal comes tumbling down. It's basically betting on spec. You wanna bet? Put the money down, don't hedge it and tranch hedge it and resell it ad nauseum. And if you do have that much money a certain amount should be utilized as directly back into the economy as possible.

 

[Oddball]

Protect peaceful people from force and fraud form within.

Protect national sovereignty from force from without.

End of list.

So you don't want any laws involving speed limits or which side of the road to drive on? Would you allow commerce and industry to be able to pollute the air, soil, water without restriction? Is there no room for the intent to promote the general welfare in such matters?

But while I think most Americans (including you) are probably in full agreement on those kinds of things, the others listed in the thread starter are a bit more complicated.

Speed limits...Local issue. On open interstates highways; none for non-commercial traffic and enforce lane usage, i.e. the Autobahn.

Pollution of the air and soil is a quasi-aggressive act....Especially given that the land pollution would likely run off onto another's property.

 

[m.blitzkrieg]

I would say that the sole purpose of any government is to enforce the social contract. A few of the major points that governments should try aim to establish:

1. Guidance
2. Safety
3. Protection

The guidance leads to laws being established in the name of saftey, and armies are usually developed for protection. Anything a government does could likely be simplified to these three concepts.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Dude nailed it.

 

[Mr Natural]

Something tangible in return for the ungodly amount of taxes I pay.

 

[Foxfyre]

This is going to be a good discussion. I have to be gone for several hours but will return to respond or join in.

 

[MaggieMae]

We got off track on Ravi's thread objecting to Obama being compared to Hitler, but there seemed to be some interest in the new topic, so I'm moving it here.

One of the comparisons was in tactics used by government to accomplish whatever goals the leadership might want to achieve. But whether such tactics are proper, appropriate, or inappropriate is often in our perspectives of what we think government should be, and what we do and do not want government to do for us or to us.

The question under discussion was this but does not necessarily have to be limited to this:

From your perspective, what IS the appropriate role of government in taking over and running private commerce and industry at any level or in any circumstances? What limits would you place on government's ability to tell you where you can and cannot work, what you are or are not allowed to earn, what kind of healthcare you are required to have, what sort of union you must belong to?

And add to that, from your perspective, what is the appropriate role of government in telling you how much you must or cannot save, how much interest you can or cannot earn, what you can and cannot invest or speculate in, what risks you are or are not allowed to take?

It would be helpful if Federal and State government distinctions would be made if you in fact think there are distinctions between Federal and State government.

Your quoted portions seem to presume that the government already dictates where you can work, earn, save, invest or risk. And that's simply not true. If this is about healthcare, then talk about that, not generalize by lumping other assumptions into that one issue.

I believe the federal government needs to get involved in regulating (or at least establishing guidelines for) any major component that affects ALL of our lives. That would include energy, education, defense, and yes, our health (because if we are a sick society, nothing else matters anyway).

But then some of those broad categories would need to be broken down of course. For example, I don't think the government should demand that your child attend school, but when a child does enter the school system, s/he shouldn't be subjected to a myriad of different curriculum which are based solely on the character of a region. Therefore, the government should design GUIDELINES for basic education, and mandate that those be included in all state education programs.

Is that enough to start a conversation? Sorry I can't participate further today, and I look forward to many comments to read tomorrow.

 

[MaggieMae]

Protect peaceful people from force and fraud form within.

Protect national sovereignty from force from without.

End of list.

In other words, robots. Unless you broaden that simplistic rule, you ignore the basic fact that what's good for one person create hell for another.

 

[MaggieMae]

Dude nailed it.

NO way. The preamble to the Constitution tells us in 52 words that the nation's reason for being can be reduced to six principles:

Society
Justice
Peace
Security
Commonwealth
Freedom

 

[Oddball]

Protect peaceful people from force and fraud form within.

Protect national sovereignty from force from without.

End of list.

In other words, robots. Unless you broaden that simplistic rule, you ignore the basic fact that what's good for one person create hell for another.

What in hell are you talking about?

 

[rightwinger]

I think the answer is that a government must evolve with the needs of a society. There are some functions that the government does better and there are some that private industry does better. There is also a need for Government oversight of private industry.
Prior to the 1960s, private industry could do whatever it wanted in terms of the environment. Waste products were just dumped into rivers and lakes. If you didn't have a river you just dumped it into the ground. You burned what you liked and put it into the air. The results were the poisoning of many people in surrounding communities as well as a destruction of our water system. Even though industries complained that the government was forcing them out of business, we needed government to step in and protect us.

 

[amrchaos]

We got off track on Ravi's thread objecting to Obama being compared to Hitler, but there seemed to be some interest in the new topic, so I'm moving it here.

One of the comparisons was in tactics used by government to accomplish whatever goals the leadership might want to achieve. But whether such tactics are proper, appropriate, or inappropriate is often in our perspectives of what we think government should be, and what we do and do not want government to do for us or to us.

The question under discussion was this but does not necessarily have to be limited to this:

From your perspective, what IS the appropriate role of government in taking over and running private commerce and industry at any level or in any circumstances? What limits would you place on government's ability to tell you where you can and cannot work, what you are or are not allowed to earn, what kind of healthcare you are required to have, what sort of union you must belong to?

And add to that, from your perspective, what is the appropriate role of government in telling you how much you must or cannot save, how much interest you can or cannot earn, what you can and cannot invest or speculate in, what risks you are or are not allowed to take?

It would be helpful if Federal and State government distinctions would be made if you in fact think there are distinctions between Federal and State government.

First off, the act of seizing property or businesses "for the people" is usually what I term as "theft by government". I think a synonym is nationalization.

I do not think government should do this. On the other hand, I think the government do have rights to own property, businesses and investments and there has never been a problem with this until the advent of communism. Now, can a Government buy a business? I think they can. Should government take over the economy or major parts of the economy--I do not think so. Remember also, the same way that a government can buy a business, it could also sell one. So the concept of reversing the process over time is still there--if you are not a right/left wing extremists



The main purpose of government is to provide security. How it can go about doing this from my perspective could fill a book. The main thing is it has to find a way to fund it self properly without overburdening the general populace. It can do so directly through a police force or military--or indirectly through social/economic programs such as public schools, welfare programs, and Business Grants and tax incentives thus easing the ability for the citizenry to achieve in our society.

Of course, how government goes about this could be seen as a burden or unjust if you lack the perspective the government has in intiaiting the programs.

 

[Si modo]

Protect peaceful people from force and fraud form within.

Protect national sovereignty from force from without.

End of list.

In other words, robots. Unless you broaden that simplistic rule, you ignore the basic fact that what's good for one person create hell for another.

 

[Citizen]

Protect peaceful people from force and fraud form within.

Protect national sovereignty from force from without.

End of list.

In other words, robots. Unless you broaden that simplistic rule, you ignore the basic fact that what's good for one person create hell for another.

When we discuss what we want from government, it makes a very big difference if we are talking about the federal, state, or local government, because what we want for each is different.

From the federal government we only want what the Constitution limits them too.
The common defense (national security). The preservation of public peace, as well against internal convulsions as external attacks. The regulation of commerce with other nations and between states. The superintendent of our intercourse, political and commercial, with foreign countries (foreign affairs).

From the state government we only want laws and programs that apply to the citizens of the state, and as desired by the voters of said state, to protect our individual rights from infringement by the state and other individuals, along with adopting things like speed limits, licensing, oversight of public expenditures, and etc.

From the local government we want things like school systems, utilities, law enforcement, and other things that affect our daily lives.

IMHO, the closer the government is to the people themselves, the more likely it is to govern well, and the farther away from the people, such as the federal government, the less likely to govern well.

In other words, the government that governs less, governs best.

 

[Ame®icano]

What do you want from government?

Stop fixing our lives!

 

[ThePickledPunk]

I want government to make me healthy. I want government to make me as rich as the next guy. I want government to look on my choices as favorably as any other choices. I want government to make sure noone makes too much money. I want government to look out for people, not businesses (which really have nothing to do with the people I want government to look out for), I want government to play nice so others will like us.....