|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2011 17:44:33 GMT -5
Bit of a broad question, but...
In your opinion, what is the state's central purpose? Protection of the citizens' rights? (And what makes something a right? >>) Providing for its citizens with welfare and the like? Defense against invasion? Further enforcement of the society's core values? How much should the state intervene in people's lives, if at all?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2011 18:15:09 GMT -5
I think that governments are here to make sure there isn't chaos in a community. Basically, a good government protects the people's welfare by making laws. And yes, there are certain rights I believe one is born with and should not be taken away without the person's consent: namely life, love and liberty. A responsible government makes sure that the people are safe and loved and feel secure.
As to forms of government, I think that the three main forms (monarchy, aristocracy, democracy) are not necessarily good or bad - there's a right way and wrong way to run each. In my opinion, a monarchy with fair rulers and a parliament are the good way, a dictatorship is the bad way. And aristocracy (rule by the upper class) is okay as long as the lower classes are taken care of and may marry outside of their class. Democracy, I think, is the best kind of government, but people should be aware of the character of who they're electing. Some history: Aristotle said the wrong form of democracy was ochlocracy (rule by a mob), which always seems to go wrong.
EDIT: I think government should not interfere with individual lives unless someone's natural rights are compromised (why we have laws). I'm an advocate for freedom of speech, religion, and other non-religious beliefs. Basically, the right to be who you are.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2011 18:21:56 GMT -5
To me a good leader or body of leadership is, in essence, a servant. Leaders are held up as being greater than those they rule over because they're given certain powers and privileges, but they are given those only so that they can be a good servant, and a good servant attends to the needs of those they serve, whatever those needs may be. I do think governments do a lot of unnecessary things, too, and I cringe when I see the number of 0'x on your average politician's income. They should be going into government because they have a passion to lead and serve the country, not for the money or the tax payer funded family holiday business trip. I could write plenty more, but I suspect you're wanting answers from US people, so. xD Edit: Sae, a dictatorship isn't inherently bad. It has been painted in a bad light by the wrongdoings of countless dictators, but there have been good ones, too. A monarch is, for all intents and purposes, an absolute ruler (or was in ages past) and it was their choice to listen to parliament or not. If they were smart, they'd listen. Think of Vetinari from Terry Pratchett's Discworld books. He's a "one man democracy" which is another way of saying a dictator, and yet he does right by the city and is generally awesome. :3 Oh and some people might find it interesting to read the UN's declaration of Human Rights. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2011 18:24:06 GMT -5
I could write plenty more, but I suspect you're wanting answers from US people, so. xD Oh, no, I'm interested in seeing responses from all forumers, be they from the US and That Part of the World That Isn't The US. I'd like to learn more about politics and views from other countries, though I still have a way's to go with my own country. xD |
|
|
|
Post by Dju on Jul 6, 2011 18:27:27 GMT -5
Well, according to Nicolau Machiavelli's book, The Prince, it's all in name of power. A Prince's job is to keep power in his hand, he will only succeed if people are happy and the government supports them, he must find balance between strength and wisdom. It might sound cold, but it's all in order to keep power in someone's hands, by doing so there are many good side effects like peace, safety and life opportunities!  Sadly Brazil is on stupid politicians' hands who don't even know how to read. >_> Honestly, the ministry of education is an ex-clown. AN EX-CLOWN WHO CAN'T EVEN HOLD A PEN. SERIOUSLY, HE CAN'T. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacmanite on Jul 6, 2011 20:49:32 GMT -5
As to forms of government, I think that the three main forms (monarchy, aristocracy, democracy) are not necessarily good or bad - there's a right way and wrong way to run each. In my opinion, a monarchy with fair rulers and a parliament are the good way, a dictatorship is the bad way. Edit: Sae, a dictatorship isn't inherently bad. It has been painted in a bad light by the wrongdoings of countless dictators, but there have been good ones, too. A monarch is, for all intents and purposes, an absolute ruler (or was in ages past) and it was their choice to listen to parliament or not. If they were smart, they'd listen. Think of Vetinari from Terry Pratchett's Discworld books. He's a "one man democracy" which is another way of saying a dictator, and yet he does right by the city and is generally awesome. :3 For a possible real-life example of a benevolent dictator, you could look towards Singapore. If you walk down a road there, you'll find the public transport system is amazing, people are well dressed, you can feel safe walking around at night, and the place has a world-renowned zoo and bird-park. It's a very pleasant place to live, and I stayed there about five years or so. Unfortunately, no government is without its faults, and I'm sure there are issues people have with the Singapore government being a bit heavy-handed at times. (Chewing gum is a banned substance, unless you have a doctor's proscription. But then, is chewing gum really a necessity? The streets are so clean without squished bits of gum sticking to them...) The bad thing about a dictatorship is that the people have no real way to feel that their voice has been heard, without resorting to angry demostrations. Even when people are pampered (or especially when they're pampered?), they don't want to feel like their opinion doesn't count. A working voting system gives people a chance to vent their opinions on the government in a more productive, peaceful way. I agree with what Sarn said about the governments being there to serve the people, and not the other way around. It may cost the population to be funding some silly expenditures that government workers take out (and I wish they'd do less of that), but sometimes you lose a little bit to gain something more valuable. Stability, order, a good standard of living for all, upholding those universal human rights. That's what a good government should acheive, or try to. And when problems arise, as they inevitably do, there ought to be some way for the people or anyone aware of the problem to prod the leaders into the right direction again. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2011 21:21:33 GMT -5
Something interesting in response to your post, Pac: I've always had times where I think about what I would do if I were queen of the world, and I've always thought: easy, just outlaw any kind of expressed hatred and discrimination, and give everyone the freedom to choose their own profession and follow their own religion, and make sure no one is in poverty. (And give anyone a free kitten if they want one <3)
Of course, I know it wouldn't be that easy, but I don't see how it could go wrong unless I did, and I can't imagine myself becoming corrupted. I just...believe I'm too nice for that.
Again, this is just a "what if" theory, but I'd be interested to hear thoughts on it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gelquie on Jul 6, 2011 22:35:20 GMT -5
Note: I have not read much of the other posts before this post.
The way I see it, a government exists in the same way a leader of a group may exist. The general purpose of a government is to establish a working and stable system so as to keep the populace in order or to keep things in an orderly direction.
How much government intervention is needed and what kind of intervention they need depends on the populace, their culture, their environment, their philosophies, history, etc. There's no one type or form of government that's a one size fits all glove for every nation. Some nations are tougher about some things than others. It really depends on a lot of factors. There's plenty of wrong types of governments (and by that, I mean governments that just don't function or work and failing to keep things orderly), but there's no one perfect government. Actually, I have my doubts that any government in the world is perfect.
My personal preference are governments that are more likely to change when it becomes clear that something isn't working. The Great Depression comes to mind; the economic collapse forced the US government to change their system, since the system they were currently using was what led to the market crash. When a new idea (Keynesian economics, actually) came around and was put into effect, the market eventually recovered.
Debating between economic ideas would take too long and be off-topic (though someone can start that thread if they want), but the main idea there is that the government was willing to change, and events improved as a result. Are there/were there better ways? Usually, there always is. But the fact that it worked and things became more efficient is good enough for me. There will never be a perfect government, but that doesn't mean governments can't improve.
Of course, by improve, I mean in term of efficiency. As for morally/ for the people/what have you... Like I said, what works best really varies.
--
EDIT: And now that I've read the other posts...
Yeah, it's possible for dictatorships to work and be benevolent, even though the word has a bad stigma. As long as the leader is smart and he knows what's best (or tries to at least) it could well work. Again, though, it depends on the system. And everything has flaws, especially if dictators don't listen when something goes wrong.
As for the question, if I were queen of the world, I'd decree that there would be no queen of the world because one person is not enough to rule an entire world. xD That'd be way too much work with questionable enforcement.
Unless said queen of the world was more like a mediator type person, like if they were to listen to stuff from nation representatives. But that's still a lot of power.
(Yeah, my personal preference is also smaller nations; it's easier for governments to handle.)
That said, one would have to be careful outlawing things. Alcohol was banned once in the US. People drank anyway, with most of the stuff hidden away in speakeasies. In fact, for some people, it gave them a rebel euphoria. Not the message the government wanted to give. xD
Of course, there's the culture of the US to consider, but there's probably always someone.
As for hatred and discrimination... It's not a nice thing, but it's always around. It's not as easy as banning it to quell it down. It requires something a lot more complicated. I don't think there's one answer to that question, if there is a complete answer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Terra on Jul 6, 2011 22:46:59 GMT -5
Something interesting in response to your post, Pac: I've always had times where I think about what I would do if I were queen of the world, and I've always thought: easy, just outlaw any kind of expressed hatred and discrimination, and give everyone the freedom to choose their own profession and follow their own religion, and make sure no one is in poverty. (And give anyone a free kitten if they want one <3) Of course, I know it wouldn't be that easy, but I don't see how it could go wrong unless I did, and I can't imagine myself becoming corrupted. I just...believe I'm too nice for that. Again, this is just a "what if" theory, but I'd be interested to hear thoughts on it. You know, that would be great, but the first thing that jumps to mind is that it seems pretty hard to enforce those laws. XD; I mean, of course there's a lot that a government can do, probably, but it can't stop every single instance of hatred and discrimination before it happens. It also seems like the sort of thing that would require a lot of monitoring and such. Also...if you let everyone choose their own profession, what if not enough people want to do essential things like grow food? ^_^; Maybe that wouldn't be a problem, depending, but if it is, you/whoever the ruler is would have to figure out some way to deal with that. (And giving everyone a free kitten would require a lot of cat breeding, wouldn't it...and that could lead to proliferation of kitten mills, which would be absolutely terrible for the poor cats...though maybe I'm over-thinking this part. XD;) - As for the question of what the purpose of a government is...I agree with Sarn that, ideally, a government should be there to serve the people. I think that it should exist to help keep people safe, healthy, and alive. It should prevent crime and provide aid if necessary. In regards to state intervention, I'd say that a certain (probably fairly small) amount is probably necessary, but that they shouldn't interfere more than that. It's hard to say exactly how much, though. (I probably need to do some more thinking on this subject myself.  ) The question of what makes a right a right is a really interesting one. I think that rights are almost entirely defined by society. I don't think people can be born with rights, really, unless they're born in a place where they're given a lot of rights by the society they live in. Basically, enough people in a society have to agree to respect this right and be able to enforce it for those who choose to violate it. Otherwise, it just doesn't exist in any meaningful way. I think that if a lot of people believe that people should have certain rights and are willing to fight for them, then society can change to reflect that, but they're still then rights given by society. Personally, I think that people should be able to live their lives without having to worry about basic necessities like food, water, and shelter, and be able to do pretty much whatever they want as long as it doesn't harm anyone. But there's a difference between believing that people should have those rights and people actually having those rights. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2011 0:07:04 GMT -5
Captain Vimes put it nicely in a conversation with Corporal Carrot; even if an absolute ruler is good and just, they still need people under them to help them rule, and what if they're corrupt? This is why real communism simply cannot exist ... human nature ends up getting in the way.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cow-winkle on Jul 7, 2011 1:36:28 GMT -5
This is something I think about a lot, and I expect that not everyone will agree with my on some of my points.
Re: "Dictatorship can be good" -- I would tend to argue that, if there's at least some level of democracy, there's at least the option of throwing out bad leaders without having to resort to a violent revolution.
I think the question of "What is the current purpose of government" is slightly different from "What is the proper purpose of government". I don't claim to have a perfect answer to either question, but I can give it a shot.
As to how governments work now, I think they tend to be an instrument of what the people of a country/state/province/city want, doing things that are too large-scale to be done by individuals or by private businesses, or basically making up for the shortcomings of the people. I think that this is a good thing in general, because basic things like roads and defense usually require too many resources for any one person or private organization to take control of, and as long as people keep being cruel to each other, there's going to be a need for some kind of policing.
What I don't like, and what seems to be one of the purposes that governments serve, is to divide people into arbitrary "teams", in the same way that religion and ethnicity have a tendency to do. I don't buy the idea that it's right to stand up for your country no matter what its government does. If your government is doing something that you know is wrong, you shouldn't have to feel any guilt in speaking out against it. I think nationalism probably does more harm than good; the imporant thing should be the rights and welfare of the people, not the glory of the nation's flag or its leaders.
I also don't like the idea that people tend to look up to their political representatives as heroic leaders or celebrities; I don't think you'd want Charlie Sheen or Paris Hilton deciding whether to go to war or how to balance the budget. I've referred to politicians as being "leaders", but that's sort of a misleading word. Like Sarn was saying, I think their job should be to serve the public, not the other way around.
Re: Rights -- I don't claim to know where rights objectively come from, and unfortunately, I don't think there's ever going to be a universally satisfying basis for showing whether there can be any objective rights, and if so, what they are. I think the U.N. charter is probably a good place to start, but I don't think that it's going to solve all the ethical problems that philosophers have been struggling with for thousands of years. As a personal preference, if there's a right I'm willing to die for, it's freedom of thought and speech, even for people I vehemently disagree with.
|
|
|
|
Post by Komori on Jul 7, 2011 12:41:26 GMT -5
Problem with benevolent monarchy, what do you do when the current kind king dies? You can never hope for a constant family line of nice people. In fact, isn't "the good king dies and his evil son takes over" a story cliche by now? XD
|
|
|
|
Post by Sock on Jul 9, 2011 3:04:43 GMT -5
FYI, before you read this post, I haven't read all of this thread so I'm probably being redundant. The purpose of government is to keep things in order, effectively. To protect people, allow people access to things they would not otherwise have, help people and keep the community from dissolving into chaos. Well, according to Nicolau Machiavelli's book, The Prince, it's all in name of power. A Prince's job is to keep power in his hand, he will only succeed if people are happy and the government supports them, he must find balance between strength and wisdom. It might sound cold, but it's all in order to keep power in someone's hands, by doing so there are many good side effects like peace, safety and life opportunities! Er... I really don't think we should look to a book that Stalin and other famous dictators loved for advice. Not to mention, that book is theorised to be political satire. Also, re: dictatorship being good possibly - the thing is, good for who? I think the people who say dictatorship might be a good idea have probably never lived in a dictatorship. I don't think a dictator can ever effectively balance the needs of the citizens. |
|
|
|
Post by Dju on Jul 9, 2011 13:16:10 GMT -5
FYI, before you read this post, I haven't read all of this thread so I'm probably being redundant. The purpose of government is to keep things in order, effectively. To protect people, allow people access to things they would not otherwise have, help people and keep the community from dissolving into chaos. Well, according to Nicolau Machiavelli's book, The Prince, it's all in name of power. A Prince's job is to keep power in his hand, he will only succeed if people are happy and the government supports them, he must find balance between strength and wisdom. It might sound cold, but it's all in order to keep power in someone's hands, by doing so there are many good side effects like peace, safety and life opportunities! Er... I really don't think we should look to a book that Stalin and other famous dictators loved for advice. Not to mention, that book is theorised to be political satire. Also, re: dictatorship being good possibly - the thing is, good for who? I think the people who say dictatorship might be a good idea have probably never lived in a dictatorship. I don't think a dictator can ever effectively balance the needs of the citizens. Me and my school studied chapter by chapter of this book, honestly none of us saw it as a political satire... D: Machiavelli just organized what was obvious to all of us, but that sometimes we forget. Just because Stalin took advice for it it doesn't means it's bad. :/ I find the way that Machiavelli uses history as base to 'predict' the future very interesting! :3 |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2011 13:34:29 GMT -5
About Machiavelli's book...I always saw his point of view as "keep your power even if you have to be a tyrant to do it." Not my favorite viewpoint. I think that any reasonable human, leader or not, should put his/her family and friends before their position. I know I would. I would give up any power if it meant I would save someone's life by doing so.
|
|
)
