Numerous topics in SD and LD and side points being discussed has caused me to wonder just what everyone thinks about the role of government, and what rights they have and duties.

Certain people appear to think that governments have a right to rule their country with an iron fist, some think there shouldn't be a government at all, some think that governments should be able to provide for every single one of their citizens, some think there should be deregulation.

When it comes down to it, your view of government and its rights and duties is based on your philosophical and religious views. As a Christian, I support deregulation, and a minimalistic government. Basically: governments have the duty to protect their citizens from outside assault and inside lawbreakers, through armies and the police and law system. The law system should be one that protects the people, rather than allowing harm to them. However, it should only protect the law abiding people. The government should have no other duties, and its only rights should be that it can do what is both necessary AND lawful to fulfill its duties. The government should not be above the law.

The government should be able to do anything which increases the overall happiness, efficiency, and safety of its people as a whole.

Obviously people have different measures of which is more important and it varies from situation to situation. Thus, debates.

Governments should have the right to protect its peoples. That said, I don't mean that governments should protect people from themselves; I think governments should protect people from other people. For example, drugs should be legal. All drugs. And you can't say that that means I'm pro-drugs. I'm pro freedom of choice.

Also, you didn't touch upon this, but the government shouldn't support people who have the ability to work. The U.S. welfare system should be used only when work is impossible to find, or as a 6-month maximum "fallback" for unemployed, not a primary source of income. If you have a disability, or a severe injury, and you cannot work, then it is OK to rely on the welfare system, but there are way too many lazy people who are unwilling to work.

Quote

As a Christian, I support deregulation, and a minimalistic government. Basically: governments have the duty to protect their citizens from outside assault and inside lawbreakers, through armies and the police and law system. The law system should be one that protects the people, rather than allowing harm to them. However, it should only protect the law abiding people. The government should have no other duties, and its only rights should be that it can do what is both necessary AND lawful to fulfill its duties. The government should not be above the law.

I started typing up more, then I read the rest of this. I agree with all of this (minus the Christian part). Especially the bolded lines. There is no need for government intrusion into law-abiding citizen's lives, no matter how "suspicious" their activity is.

Quote from FaZ-

The government should be able to do anything which increases the overall happiness, efficiency, and safety of its people as a whole.

Obviously people have different measures of which is more important and it varies from situation to situation. Thus, debates.

Hmm. So you're saying the government has a duty to make people overall be happy, and that it has the right to do anything to achieve its goals? In that case, what if some people (e.g. emos) refuse to be happy. Does the government have the right to kill them to increase the overall happiness of its people?

I think that in a capitalist society, efficiency continues to increase without government aid or interference. And I agree about safety.

Quote from poison_us

Governments should have the right to protect its peoples. That said, I don't mean that governments should protect people from themselves; I think governments should protect people from other people. For example, drugs should be legal. All drugs. And you can't say that that means I'm pro-drugs. I'm pro freedom of choice.

Also, you didn't touch upon this, but the government shouldn't support people who have the ability to work. The U.S. welfare system should be used only when work is impossible to find, or as a 6-month maximum "fallback" for unemployed, not a primary source of income. If you have a disability, or a severe injury, and you cannot work, then it is OK to rely on the welfare system, but there are way too many lazy people who are unwilling to work.

I did touch upon in, in that I implied that the government should protect people against lawbreakers. Supporting people who can't work or refuse to work is not in that mandate. It is the duty of the church to support those people, and I see welfare as the state trying to become a church of sorts. If I was unable to work right now, I could survive through the help of my church and other churches and community groups without using any government welfare at all, as could most people. Obviously there'd be a problem if massive amounts of people were unable to work, but that shouldn't and probably will never happen in a society with a minimalistic government.

Quote

Quote

As a Christian, I support deregulation, and a minimalistic government. Basically: governments have the duty to protect their citizens from outside assault and inside lawbreakers, through armies and the police and law system. The law system should be one that protects the people, rather than allowing harm to them. However, it should only protect the law abiding people. The government should have no other duties, and its only rights should be that it can do what is both necessary AND lawful to fulfill its duties. The government should not be above the law.

I started typing up more, then I read the rest of this. I agree with all of this (minus the Christian part). Especially the bolded lines. There is no need for government intrusion into law-abiding citizen's lives, no matter how "suspicious" their activity is.

@the Christian part My view is one that is upheld by the Bible in general, but is certainly not a specifically Christian viewpoint. Just clarifying that you can agree with me and not have to give up being an atheist

There is a lot of industry that needs to be deregulated, and there are a lot of rights that need to be deregulated as well. But, as I said in one of the other topics, I bitterly admit that people cannot be trusted with their own freedoms and liberties, and if there isn't someone telling them not to do something, then they'll think it is alright to do. Such as disposing of toxic waste, or environmental policies. And yes, I think that health care needs regulation - but I don't think that how its happening right now is the right/best way. I think that it is providing insurmountable barriers of entry to small businesses, and in fact people are circumventing policies simply by hiring a ton of part time employees or not hiring employees at all.

There's a lot of things that could benefit from deregulation. Like, as I've mentioned before, marriage. There is no reason for regulation there. That is an overwhelmingly social or religious function and government should have no say in who marries who.

I think the unfortunate thing is that I do not look at my colleagues and see ethically upstanding individuals. I see a bunch of whiny and self important business owners who cry and complain over things like the CPSIA. The truth is that these regulations shouldn't HAVE to exist. But they do because people put out toys made with lead paint or filling with wrappers instead of stuffing.

Overall I think the biggest problem with regulation is that the more customers are told that they are right the dumber they become. They use means such as video games to babysit their kids. They don't watch as a kid takes apart her barbie doll and then subsequently chokes on the earring. Or recalling bikes because of a falling hazard. Really? I remember the first time I fell my grandfather - half kidding, of course - said that it builds character. Well it does actually. That's exactly why you fall repeatedly until you get it.

I hate it. I do. I don't think it should be this way. I wish more business people looked at a decision and said, "huh, would this be good for humanity?" and if they say "no" on any account they send it back to R&D or come up with a substitute. I do think the CPSIA is needlessly wordy and rather long, but I will give it this: the website is incredibly easy to navigate. I was honestly shocked.

But it is symptomatic of the culture we live in. Individually, some people are incredibly smart. But on a whole people are too stupid.

OK, beyond that rant, and I ranted on Voy's wall a few days ago about this. In the end, representatives in the government should be doing one thing: representing public opinions. Unfortunately, this isn't possible. I think politicians all have their own agendas and act accordingly. But in the end I don't want a politician to say, "no this is what's right," because that's bullshit. Like I said, people are stupid, but I'd rather they be stupid and heard than stupid and ignored. I think that's the biggest complaint with Obama right now. He's a media darling and the rest of the world seems to love him, but I don't think he's doing a good job at representing his people.

Our law system is very flawed. I will admit that. If you don't believe me, look up "Adverse Possession." WOW. Why does that even exist? But at the same time, I think there are a lot of great points that are discounted. I find it fortunate that we live under common law, even though if you want my opinion I think the US is moving towards code law. When I was younger it was my goal to reform the bankruptcy laws, but I think trial by fire has forced that change to happen. I can't even keep up with all the changes in bankruptcy and credit.

Quote from Jack[RCDF

Quote from FaZ-

The government should be able to do anything which increases the overall happiness, efficiency, and safety of its people as a whole.

Obviously people have different measures of which is more important and it varies from situation to situation. Thus, debates.

Hmm. So you're saying the government has a duty to make people overall be happy, and that it has the right to do anything to achieve its goals? In that case, what if some people (e.g. emos) refuse to be happy. Does the government have the right to kill them to increase the overall happiness of its people?

I think that in a capitalist society, efficiency continues to increase without government aid or interference. And I agree about safety.

The three need to be weighed against each other. Obviously if you're killing off members of your own society you're not doing much to help their safety, huh?

I don't talk about "rights." There's no such thing as rights.

I'm the opposite of Kame - I think that representatives need to be focused more on issues of national importance and compromise than local district issues. I think the biggest problem with the US electoral system is that House members (and Senators to some extent) have to be campaigning all the time to keep their seats. The amount of money that goes into a modern campaign is absurd - and if they're fundraising 24/7, representatives simply can't make the intelligent, informed decisions they need to.

I agree about there being too much emphasis on campaigning. Especially since a campaign is just a bunch of jargon, and usually is not kept to. But really if representatives kept to what their people want, I don't think there'd be such an emphasis on campaigning.

The bad guys want to kill all the people.
The Government protects it's people from the bad guys.
The U.S. Constitution protects the people from the government.
Laws within the nation protect the people from themselves and eachother.

The main problem is that business is what really has control in the world.
This is why the government regulates things like lead paint.
In a perfect capitalist society the people would boycott the toys with lead paint therefore forcing the business to fix it's products or lose its source of income.

The most important thing is education and information together. People who know and understand what is going on make the best citizens.
The question becomes: Should the goverment really be providing education or should it be privatized?

Quote from Jack[RCDF

Basically: governments have the duty to protect their citizens from outside assault and inside lawbreakers, through armies and the police and law system. The government should have no other duties, and its only rights should be that it can do what is both necessary AND lawful to fulfill its duties.

To maintain police and an army and pay the people forming government it would need money. This would most likely come from taxes. What's your stance on that? I'm asking because flawed taxing is another common problem in todays governments.

An interesting note related to campaigning:

"Fortune 500 companies are run by 499 extroverts, plus Bill Gates. There are 435 extroverts in the House of Representatives and 100 in the Senate, two from each state." - Allen B. Downey

Quote from FaZ-

"Fortune 500 companies are run by 499 extroverts, plus Bill Gates. There are 435 extroverts in the House of Representatives and 100 in the Senate, two from each state." - Allen B. Downey

Agreed.
How do you think I feel that money that could have gone to my school ended up with Spitzers prostitute.
Politicians seem to have an weakness when it comes to cheating on their wives.

Infidelity isn't costing you more than 0.000001% of your tax money. If you like being mad about what pundits tell you to be mad about, harp on that. If you want to be mad about something that matters, learn about defense spending.

Ahhh but almost everyone here has stated that the purpose of government is to defend the people.
also most of the governments budget is spent on social security.

Quote from NudeRaider

Quote from Jack[RCDF

Basically: governments have the duty to protect their citizens from outside assault and inside lawbreakers, through armies and the police and law system. The government should have no other duties, and its only rights should be that it can do what is both necessary AND lawful to fulfill its duties.

To maintain police and an army and pay the people forming government it would need money. This would most likely come from taxes. What's your stance on that? I'm asking because flawed taxing is another common problem in todays governments.

Render unto Caesar what is Caesars' sums it up pretty well. Taxes are fine, as long as they are legal and only used for the duties of the government.

I'm not sure where I stand on having a centralized government. I can certainly see advantages to localized government, and see little point to a large central government. I think it would be extremelu
Interesting to see what would happen in the US if the federal government disappeared and there was only statespecific governments, maybe with some sort of congress meeting every now and then.

Yeah but how would you ensure taxes are fair?

Quote from Jack[RCDF

Render unto Caesar what is Caesars' sums it up pretty well. Taxes are fine, as long as they are legal and only used for the duties of the government.

To be fair, Jesus said that to troll the people that disagreed with him. They were trying to catch him doing something illegal, and they mentioned how unfair the tax rates must be, and that was his response. So it has nothing to do how 'fair' or 'right' the taxes are, its that we should pay them regardless because that's the right thing to do.

Quote from NudeRaider

Yeah but how would you ensure taxes are fair?

100% tax for everyone seems fair to me.

The government should attempt to do the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

Quote from CaptainWill

The government should attempt to do the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

Define 'good'.

Nude, I don't know.