Purpose of Government

[gnarlylove]

This thread derives its source from georgephillip's post and has grown out of the concern for how governments function and how this differs from our visions of government. In the abstract it is perfectly natural to entertain the idea of society without government. But in our concrete reality, governments exist and are unlikely to fade or disappear anytime soon (though it is possible). This thread is about the latter.

 

[gnarlylove]

If I may continue the discussion...
If the earth is private property (capitalism requires as much), then it follows there must be government otherwise Darwinian principles take over. I can't imagine anyone wishing for Darwinian principles (e.g. might makes right) to control society as opposed to human planning and intelligence (unless it's a monopoly which tends to harm the general population).

Assuming we will not dismantle governments anytime soon, either we can have Darwin, a monopoly, or a form of public government. We currently live in a monopoly government where the business class, a highly class conscious group, are aware they participate in "investment politics." In other words, they fund campaigns to construct policy in their favor. This is nothing new but is reaching unprecedented levels compared to the last few decades.

If government is to exist (it does and will indefinitely as opposed to Darwinian policy), then it should serve the general population, not just a minority or monopoly. In order to serve this population, the absolute first and prime issue is ensuring access to food and water without which the population ceases. I am not saying the government must deliver food to every person each morning. There is a crucial difference: gov't must provide a means, not the end. Whether that's providing private property for self-sufficiency or ensuring an adequate supply of jobs to meet the demand for earning one's access to adequate sustenance. That isn't asking very much since any jobs available should be designed to contribute positively to society's functioning and advancement.

 

[whitehall]

Preamble to the Constitution. It's a short paragraph. "Establish justice, provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare". Notice it doesn't say "promote the common defense and provide for the general welfare" as generations of democrat politicians have interpreted it.

 

[norwegen]

If I may continue the discussion...
If the earth is private property (capitalism requires as much), then it follows there must be government otherwise Darwinian principles take over. I can't imagine anyone wishing for Darwinian principles (e.g. might makes right) to control society as opposed to human planning and intelligence (unless it's a monopoly which tends to harm the general population).

Assuming we will not dismantle governments anytime soon, either we can have Darwin, a monopoly, or a form of public government. We currently live in a monopoly government where the business class, a highly class conscious group, are aware they participate in "investment politics." In other words, they fund campaigns to construct policy in their favor. This is nothing new but is reaching unprecedented levels compared to the last few decades.

If government is to exist (it does and will indefinitely as opposed to Darwinian policy), then it should serve the general population, not just a minority or monopoly. In order to serve this population, the absolute first and prime issue is ensuring access to food and water without which the population ceases. I am not saying the government must deliver food to every person each morning. There is a crucial difference: gov't must provide a means, not the end. Whether that's providing private property for self-sufficiency or ensuring an adequate supply of jobs to meet the demand for earning one's access to adequate sustenance. That isn't asking very much since any jobs available should be designed to contribute positively to society's functioning and advancement.

Why must the government provide a means. The Constitution says nothing about food.

 

[Drake_Roberts]

The role of government is to ensure men don't take advantage of their fellow man. To ensure men don't kill each other (something they fail at miserably). If all governments worked for peace and one global nation, think about the problems that could be solved!

Resources could be allocated fairly.
Wars could be ceased.
Scientists could all pool their researches towards common goals like cheap, efficient renewable fuels, or effective space travel.
Developing nation could be developed faster.
Industry could spread at a faster rate.
If one area is struggling, the world can help to stop the decline.
Disease could be all but eradicated.
Mankind could promote understanding as a whole.
People all over could have equal rights.
Starvation could be eliminated.
Etc.
Off topic, but, if all governments worked like they should, that is the world we would live in.

 

[william the wie]

A Darwinian solution tends to work out over 16 or more generations in just about any species. What is called social Darwinism is simply taking advantage of really good examples of what not to do as a learning tool. Protecting people from themselves is not a function of government.

 

[Steven_R]

Which level of government are we talking about? The role of the federal government and the role of city hall are different. I can say the primary role of government is secure our rights and protect us from those that would steal our rights, but then what? Is a fire department something our city should be doing? Is fire fighting something the feds should be doing? Roads, parks, libraries, schools, public health, police, prisons, the courts are these things we want to leave to private entities that may or may not be interested in doing?

 

[FA_Q2]

If I may continue the discussion...
If the earth is private property (capitalism requires as much), then it follows there must be government otherwise Darwinian principles take over. I can't imagine anyone wishing for Darwinian principles (e.g. might makes right) to control society as opposed to human planning and intelligence (unless it's a monopoly which tends to harm the general population).

Assuming we will not dismantle governments anytime soon, either we can have Darwin, a monopoly, or a form of public government. We currently live in a monopoly government where the business class, a highly class conscious group, are aware they participate in "investment politics." In other words, they fund campaigns to construct policy in their favor. This is nothing new but is reaching unprecedented levels compared to the last few decades.

If government is to exist (it does and will indefinitely as opposed to Darwinian policy), then it should serve the general population, not just a minority or monopoly. In order to serve this population, the absolute first and prime issue is ensuring access to food and water without which the population ceases. I am not saying the government must deliver food to every person each morning. There is a crucial difference: gov't must provide a means, not the end. Whether that's providing private property for self-sufficiency or ensuring an adequate supply of jobs to meet the demand for earning one's access to adequate sustenance. That isn't asking very much since any jobs available should be designed to contribute positively to society's functioning and advancement.

I would challenge that supposition. You assume that the government must provide such access because the people cannot do so for themselves otherwise there would be no point point be. I, personally, find that is the fundamental flaw with most peoples concept of government – they are looking for it to provide them something and I would challenge that as the purpose of government.

The purpose for government, if we truly want to be free, is nothing more than to protect our natural rights. Simple really though much much harder to implement. That should be the core of all government. It does not preclude something like a safety net or public works project but it does preclude those things from being the primary purpose of government. I think that what we have done to government today has essentially transformed core purpose of government to protect our rights to be a government whose core purpose is to provide for us. I think that the corrupting influence that cases is self even dent.

What the government provides, the government may take away. When the governments sole purpose is to ‘care’ for you or provide for you then you end up without any rights at all.

 

[georgephillip]

The following barely scratches the surface, I know:

"The main purpose of the Government is to govern, manage and protect the individual rights for its citizens. It ensures the proper use of force by specifying laws, to clarify the use of force. The government is also responsible for enforcing laws."

What Is the Purpose of the Government - Ask.com

According to some modern interpretations of the phrase "individual rights for its citizens" government can be held responsible for managing and protecting an individual's right to food, shelter, and water when the dominant economic system of the day proves incapable of providing adequate opportunity for a sufficient percentage of individuals.

Official UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights Home Page

 

[gnarlylove]

Why must the government provide a means. The Constitution says nothing about food.

Without food humans do not survive. The most important aspect of a functioning society is its ability to provide nutrients to its productive citizens. Without which, freedom of speech has no meaning since people cannot exist without food. I am not using the US constitution as infallible document. There is plenty to update since the 18th century. It may be a helpful guide but following it like religion is dangerous (I am not accusing you of this, merely making the point).

 

[gnarlylove]

I would challenge that supposition. You assume that the government must provide such access because the people cannot do so for themselves otherwise there would be no point point be. I, personally, find that is the fundamental flaw with most peoples concept of government – they are looking for it to provide them something and I would challenge that as the purpose of government.

Gov't is nothing special with special powers. It is simply the organization of people to address their concerns. Now who is in the gov't is monumentally important. If the people controlled the gov't like we are told we do, then when popular opinion says something, the gov't responds. But we all know it doesn't work that way. Instead, we have elites who operate gov't. It's not that their bad people, rather, it's just the nature of the structure. Either they participate in the elite interests or they are ousted. Public opinion is a slight consideration as noted by a recent congressman (or some study) that said "96% of the time when an issue is undecided officials turn to written letters/emails for thought." It is important to notice what is not being said as much as what is being said by this. When an issue is decided, public opinion is not considered. So take 80% of the pop. wants gun legislation. This didn't pass because the elites saw it differently. How can it be democracy when 80% (margin of error less than 3%) of the people disagree?

The purpose for government, if we truly want to be free, is nothing more than to protect our natural rights. Simple really though much much harder to implement. That should be the core of all government. It does not preclude something like a safety net or public works project but it does preclude those things from being the primary purpose of government. I think that what we have done to government today has essentially transformed core purpose of government to protect our rights to be a government whose core purpose is to provide for us. I think that the corrupting influence that cases is self even dent.

What the government provides, the government may take away. When the governments sole purpose is to ‘care’ for you or provide for you then you end up without any rights at all.

Please don't mistake my arguments to mean gov't must deliver food to each person in the morn. They must work for it, otherwise you don't get it. But there are millions who need food, but can't find adequate sustenance (some resort to crime which counters productive society). Without sustenance, natural rights are obsolete. In fact, natural rights are obsolete themselves given leaps and bounds in our civilization as a nation. No child can succeed if their parents cannot find work to support their needs. 1 in 7 children in America experience hunger insecurity. This is not civilized treatment. It is easily conceivable with US resources that each person willing to participate in society through work (building high speed rail, renewable energy, tutoring, counseling of prisoners instead of literally inculcating hatred for the system on and on). I'm not saying the gov't provides the jobs, I'm saying the gov't uses its authority to generate jobs mostly through structures and institutions that already exist including many private institutions that already counsel, build solar etc etc.

Our current understanding of natural rights makes us fools. Economic rights must go hand in hand with natural rights, otherwise civil rights are good but secondary (hence useless) to people in need of food. Again, I'm not saying the gov't must provide everyone with food stamps or a safety net, rather, they should offer a means to the end of acquiring sustenance. This would eliminate the need for a food stamp program since everyone is assured productive means through which they can earn their livelihood. Could this happen in America? Yes. Will it? Not likely.

This article is very well written by my favorite philosopher and explains this difference.
Fraternity Reigns - NYTimes.com

 

[Big Black Dog]

The purpose of government is to give free shit to slackers who in turn will vote Democratic.

 

[gnarlylove]

The jobs market is controlled by an inefficient market. The supply of jobs are far lower than the demand. This means the price of labor is driven down, way down. Working conditions can be abhorrent but must be tolerated if one wishes to continue eating 3 meals a day. This is a tragedy that so many wish they could participate in society but too few opportunities exist for the bottom 40%. So the unemployment rate in America does not consider long-term unemployment and those who simply give up in frustration. If these rates were calculated, unemployment might be around 20%. Hence I argue the gov't should step in given it's massive resources to make the market efficient again. Efficient with respect to generating a healthy society, of course, not one with dismal inequality.

America's CEO to avg. worker pay is 354 times higher as calculated in 2012. WTF! In most countries it tends to be around 100-150.

The only way to justify this sort of institutional mistreatment of humans is to define those in poverty and near poverty as getting what they deserve as if they are lesser humans, akin to chimps more than the average person. The term exploitation is a euphemism. I won't stand for such nonsense! ALL humans are born roughly the same (with a few outliers) but the elites have created institutions that prevent much of humanity from expressing their talents and pursuing their interests. Instead, they must compete fiercely in the job market where sometimes 1000s of applications are for 1 job. Fucking sick!

 

[TakeAStepBack]

(unless it's a monopoly which tends to harm the general population).

Government is a monopoly.

 

[racewright]

The role of government is to ensure men don't take advantage of their fellow man. To ensure men don't kill each other (something they fail at miserably). If all governments worked for peace and one global nation, think about the problems that could be solved!

Resources could be allocated fairly.
Wars could be ceased.
Scientists could all pool their researches towards common goals like cheap, efficient renewable fuels, or effective space travel.
Developing nation could be developed faster.
Industry could spread at a faster rate.
If one area is struggling, the world can help to stop the decline.
Disease could be all but eradicated.
Mankind could promote understanding as a whole.
People all over could have equal rights.
Starvation could be eliminated.
Etc.
Off topic, but, if all governments worked like they should, that is the world we would live in.

Jeeezz what a crock,,do-gooder cry cry

 

[racewright]

The purpose of government is to give free shit to slackers who in turn will vote Democratic.

 

[regent]

Preamble to the Constitution. It's a short paragraph. "Establish justice, provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare". Notice it doesn't say "promote the common defense and provide for the general welfare" as generations of democrat politicians have interpreted it.

The preamble is the purpose for the writing of the Constitution, the preamble does not bestow any power on government.

 

[BobPlumb]

Preamble to the Constitution. It's a short paragraph. "Establish justice, provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare". Notice it doesn't say "promote the common defense and provide for the general welfare" as generations of democrat politicians have interpreted it.

The preamble is the purpose for the writing of the Constitution, the preamble does not bestow any power on government.

But the preamble does answer the question posed by the OP. At least this is the consensus that our founding fathers came to for the purpose of our constitution --the primary document that defines our federal government.

P.S. It is the rest of the constitution that bestows power on the federal gov.

 

[Mathbud1]

The jobs market is controlled by an inefficient market. The supply of jobs are far lower than the demand. This means the price of labor is driven down, way down. Working conditions can be abhorrent but must be tolerated if one wishes to continue eating 3 meals a day. This is a tragedy that so many wish they could participate in society but too few opportunities exist for the bottom 40%. So the unemployment rate in America does not consider long-term unemployment and those who simply give up in frustration. If these rates were calculated, unemployment might be around 20%. Hence I argue the gov't should step in given it's massive resources to make the market efficient again. Efficient with respect to generating a healthy society, of course, not one with dismal inequality.

America's CEO to avg. worker pay is 354 times higher as calculated in 2012. WTF! In most countries it tends to be around 100-150.

The only way to justify this sort of institutional mistreatment of humans is to define those in poverty and near poverty as getting what they deserve as if they are lesser humans, akin to chimps more than the average person. The term exploitation is a euphemism. I won't stand for such nonsense! ALL humans are born roughly the same (with a few outliers) but the elites have created institutions that prevent much of humanity from expressing their talents and pursuing their interests. Instead, they must compete fiercely in the job market where sometimes 1000s of applications are for 1 job. Fucking sick!

I get where you are coming from, but think about this: What is sick about some people succeeding? Do you have a problem with the inequality in what people are making or do you have a problem with some people not succeeding? Would you be less outraged if the same number of people were living in poverty if the richest people just weren't as rich?

So what should the rich people do? Stop trying to make money? Stop investing in businesses and products? Stop succeeding?

What do you suggest?

 

[Mathbud1]

The jobs market is controlled by an inefficient market. The supply of jobs are far lower than the demand. This means the price of labor is driven down, way down. Working conditions can be abhorrent but must be tolerated if one wishes to continue eating 3 meals a day. This is a tragedy that so many wish they could participate in society but too few opportunities exist for the bottom 40%. So the unemployment rate in America does not consider long-term unemployment and those who simply give up in frustration. If these rates were calculated, unemployment might be around 20%. Hence I argue the gov't should step in given it's massive resources to make the market efficient again. Efficient with respect to generating a healthy society, of course, not one with dismal inequality.

America's CEO to avg. worker pay is 354 times higher as calculated in 2012. WTF! In most countries it tends to be around 100-150.

The only way to justify this sort of institutional mistreatment of humans is to define those in poverty and near poverty as getting what they deserve as if they are lesser humans, akin to chimps more than the average person. The term exploitation is a euphemism. I won't stand for such nonsense! ALL humans are born roughly the same (with a few outliers) but the elites have created institutions that prevent much of humanity from expressing their talents and pursuing their interests. Instead, they must compete fiercely in the job market where sometimes 1000s of applications are for 1 job. Fucking sick!

How would you have the government make the market more efficient? What actions would you propose the government take to promote efficiency?