What should government do?

[Garnet]

What should the government of a nation do? What responsibilities should belong to government and what responsibilities should belong to individual citizens?

[Caligulette]

Governments should provide for the common welfare - education, health care, economic safety net.

[Watser?]

Also: stuff like protecting citizens from natural disasters (floods, volcanoes, earthquakes etc.) as much as possible. Definitely not something you can leave to the market.

[Qingdai]

Safeguard the citizenry, from which they derive all power from.

[godfry n. glad]

Provide justice that is not 'just us rich folks'.

[mickthinks]

In effect you're asking for a definition of Utopia. Which is to say, it is not as simple a question as it looks.

[godfry n. glad]

I would like to further delimit this discussion by focusing upon the separation of powers...

Which functions should be provided by national governments as versus more local ('state' governments in the US) regional and municipal governments.

I personally think that national government should stay the hell out of education, other than as an adjunct to their other services (like to military personnel family members). Other than assure integration, the national government involved in education has been a exemplar of why they should not be involved. In my view, governance of education should be at the most local level economically possible.

[godfry n. glad]

The national government should be charged with protecting the sovereignty of the consumer by intervening in the market against entrenched interests dictating to the consumer. Trust-busting and acting to prevent monopolistic (and oligopolistic and kleptocratic) and predatory actions are also excellent roles for the national government.

[godfry n. glad]

Here's something I think the national government should NOT have the power to do:

Levy a national tax where the revenue raised is put into the hands of irresponsible elected officials under the influence of well-heeled private interests who twist them in to paying those revenues out to them. We don't need to be sending all that income to Washington, DC, just to be divvied up by the fat cats. Take the power of national tax away from the feds unless it is dedicated to a specific function which is clearly sunseted in the enabling legislation.

[1Samuel8]

Originally Posted by Garnet

What should the government of a nation do? What responsibilities should belong to government and what responsibilities should belong to individual citizens?

Forgive me, Garnet but the answers to your questions are irrelevent because you will never get a consensus. You will always and everywhere have dissenters to those answers. If those dissenters are stronger than you, you will find yourself somewhere along a continuum between peace and war.

Thus, it is more prudent to ask: "How do you want to see the arbitration of dissent between yourself and your dissenters handled?" By the way, I am not pretending that is an easy question to answer. It is not. The reason I point this out is because it changes the focus.

I do not believe that The Government is an acting agent that gives a damn about what should or should not be done for individual citizens. I think it is foolhardy to expect benevolent people to be in high office. I think The Government is a collection of people who seek to control other people under the guise of "helping" them.




ETA:

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

Which functions should be provided by national governments as versus more local ('state' governments in the US) regional and municipal governments.

I think that line of thinking is wise -- although, I am not going to agree with your specifics. In general, devolving power and authority away from the federal state is the key.

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

Provide justice that is not 'just us rich folks'.

Indeed. However, I want to point out: in our current state of affairs, we live under a monopoly on the provision of justice. The government and faceless bureaucrats control and monopolize justice.

How can justice be affordable and fair to the lower income folk?

In the long run, I think it is impossible. There are very few government monopolies that are able to deliver service at low cost. The poor will always be screwed in a monopolized justice system.

People must look at alternate dispute resolution and people have to start demanding that higher levels of legal authority be devolved. I mean take a look at that black car shit --- regardless of whether you agree with it or not, you have to admit that the cost of the legal system is bid upwards when parasitic lawyer-legislators devise stupid laws. Think of all the tax-payer dollars that were wasted coming up with that law!

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

The national government should be charged with protecting the sovereignty of the consumer by intervening in the market against entrenched interests dictating to the consumer. Trust-busting and acting to prevent monopolistic (and oligopolistic and kleptocratic) and predatory actions are also excellent roles for the national government.

I think consumers can be shooting themselves in the foot with such demands.
The trouble is that acts of "trust-busting" can be a cover for predatory actions. For instance, if SupplierA can prove to his bureaucratic friends that SupplierB and SupplierC are colluding, breaking up them up into littleSupplierB1, littleSupplierB2, littleSupplierC1 and littleSupplierC2 is to SupplierA's advantage. SupplierA could have been a hell of a lot less efficient before but after the break up, he can supply because all of the costs of his competitors are now higher. His competitors can no longer take advantage of economies of scale.

[Wonderbread Leotard]

Originally Posted by 1Samuel8

Forgive me, Garnet but the answers to your questions are irrelevent because you will never get a consensus. You will always and everywhere have dissenters to those answers.

They're not irrelevant when people with the same answers (reflecting the same shared values) organize as one body along those lines and act accordingly.

How are anarchists going to organize and advance their values? To do so would be to negate their values in practice, because organization requires leadership and hierarchy. Unless your conception of anarchy allows de facto government under another name. I'm curious.

[Deadlokd]

Originally Posted by 1Samuel8

Crumb,
Politicians, bureaucrats and government agents do not work for free.

No, but nor should they profit from their legislation. Politicians get paid by the people, all the people, not just Construction King Bob or Oil Tycoon Tex.

Originally Posted by Wiki

Honour or Honor (see spelling differences), (from the Latin word honos, honoris) is the evaluation of a person's trustworthiness and social status based on that individual's espousals and actions. Honour is deemed exactly what determines a person's character: whether or not the person reflects honesty, respect, integrity, or fairness.

Originally Posted by The Free Dictionary

honour or US honor Noun
1. allegiance to moral principles
2. a person's good reputation and the respect they are given by other people
3. a. fame or glory
b. a person who wins fame or glory for his or her country, school, etc.: he was an honour to his nation

4. great respect or esteem, or an outward sign of this

Originally Posted by Dictionary.reference.com

hon⋅or

  /ˈɒnər/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [on-er] Show IPA –noun 1. honesty, fairness, or integrity in one's beliefs and actions: a man of honor. 2. a source of credit or distinction: to be an honor to one's family. 3. high respect, as for worth, merit, or rank: to be held in honor. 4. such respect manifested: a memorial in honor of the dead. 5. high public esteem; fame; glory: He has earned his position of honor. 6. the privilege of being associated with or receiving a favor from a respected person, group, organization, etc.: to have the honor of serving on a prize jury; I have the honor of introducing this evening's speaker

[1Samuel8]

Originally Posted by Deadlokd

No, but nor should they profit from their legislation. Politicians get paid by the people, all the people, not just Construction King Bob or Oil Tycoon Tex.

Sorry but I think your observation is completely wrong.

It is impossible for a politician to gain power (beyond the level of a parent-teacher association, that is) without owing something to somebody else. Politicians get paid by their campaign donors and corporate friends. Modern democracies are systemically set to produce people in power who ultimately have to pay back rich people who brought them to power.



The problem with targeting The Profit Motive is that it does not exist in any intelligent way and you can not measure it. Everybody has a profit motive.
Without government privilege* The Profit Motive goes hand in hand with The Risk Of Loss. Without the risk of loss in business, there is no immediate signal between consumers and suppliers. Government agency is virtually free of any risk of loss.

Not all businesses make profit that you can see. Some businesses actually make losses. Some businesses even go bust. Yet, they all have profit motive. Targetting The Profit Motive is just plain silly. You should target unfair advantages.


* The Fed printing money and offering loans at below market rates to commercial banks is government privilege.
* Great big corporations that get the cheapest loans and the lowest interest rates is government privilege.
* Being forced to jump through legal loopholes and not being able to afford a lawyer is government disadvantage.
Just to name a few.

Originally Posted by Sovereign

Government should gather intelligence

Yea haw! That means one less thing your Sovereignist government will be able to do among your followers!

Originally Posted by Sovereign

They're not irrelevant when people with the same answers (reflecting the same shared values) organize as one body along those lines and act accordingly.

Yeah but you had better watch out. Some young people grow up and develop the instinct to realize that maybe, just maybe, their parents, teachers, authority figures were wrong -- very, very, very fucking wrong.

At that point, hopefully they rebel against their masters -- if they are lucky to live long enough, that is.

[GodPossessed]

Government power is a hand grenade. It's great for destroying bad stuff, but innocent people are going to get hurt.

[Watser?]

So...

What makes you think government power is worse than, say, corporate power? At least there are some checks to government power.

[1Samuel8]

Originally Posted by Watser?

What makes you think government power is worse than, say, corporate power?

Why should you treat them any different?
Corporations get their "power" from government.

Originally Posted by Watser?

At least there are some checks to government power.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, whatever makes you sleep better at night.

[Watser?]

Originally Posted by 1Samuel8

Why should you treat them any different?
Corporations get their "power" from government.

Where do you get this nonsense? And why do you 'answer' my question with the exact same question?

Originally Posted by 1Samuel8

Yeah, yeah, yeah, whatever makes you sleep better at night.

As usual you have no arguments and come up with rhetoric then.

[1Samuel8]

Originally Posted by Watser?

Where do you get this nonsense?

From you. Why do you ask stupid irrelevent questions?

You were the first person to mention corporations in the thread.

Originally Posted by Garnet

Someone asked me the same question and I kind of sat there with a deer in the headlights look and fumbled about for a bit.

I think that is healthy because you may not need government.

I do not think government -- that includes their corporate friends and their corporate donors and their corporate influences -- should be doing anything.

[Garnet]

By the way, y'all. I've been asked privately if I'm looking for any specific answers or if I have an underlying agenda. I'm not looking for any specific answers. The reason that I asked these questions is that I'm really curious about what people think that government should do. Someone asked me the same question and I kind of sat there with a deer in the headlights look and fumbled about for a bit. Maybe my underlying agenda is to figure out what my views are?

[livius drusus]

Originally Posted by Garnet

The reason that I asked these questions is that I'm really curious about what people think that government should do. Someone asked me the same question and I kind of sat there with a deer in the headlights look and fumbled about for a bit.

That's exactly what happened to me when I went to post in this thread. I was going to say something generic that I once heard Bill Maher say (government should do the things that individuals can't do, like standardization, building interstates, protecting the environment, etc.), but when I thought about it, I realized that simple statement doesn't even begin to address the complexities of modern statehood.

So I'm just going to read for a while instead of shooting my mouth off.

[Dingfod]

You idyllic dreamers.

[Wonderbread Leotard]

Originally Posted by Dingfod

You idyllic dreamers.

The above is a low quality post.

[Dingfod]

Originally Posted by Sovereign

The above is a low quality post.

Fuck off and die, shithead.

[Master Taran]

Originally Posted by Dingfod

Fuck off and die, shithead.

You just HAD to quote the tard. Didn't you.

[1Samuel8]

Originally Posted by Master Taran

You just HAD to quote the tard. Didn't you.

If he was going to quote something and force you to see a heinous piece of crap, I think you were lucky on that one.