Does Government fulfill it's purpose?

[koan]

I put this under 'International Politics' because I ask it not just of the US system.

I think that government is created by the ingrained need to compete for dominance and status and wonder if it fulfills any mandate to improve the lives of people overall.

I am not trying to sound like an idiot. I believe I qualify as an anarchist though the description of such is quite varied and misunderstood. Convince me that government is a good thing and not a self serving leviathan.

I heartily accept the motto, - "That government is best which governs least;" and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which I also believe, - "That government is best which governs not at all;" and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.
--Henry David Thoreau,
"On the Duty of Civil Disobedience"

[Jack Sprat]

Koan,
If the purpose of govennment is to bring harmony to it's people, there has never been and never will be a successful government because where there is more than one person there are going to be disagreements.

I'm not sure that you are asking the right question here. Rather we may want to first consider what the purpose of government is before discussing whether any existing (or past) government has achieved our ideal "purpose".

In addition, each level of government may exist for different reasons. I consider that families have a form of government to maintain harmony within its membership and to foster the beliefs of the founding (ruling?) members.

Why are so many of you reading these posts and not adding your points of view???

Originally Posted by koan

I put this under 'International Politics' because I ask it not just of the US system.

I think that government is created by the ingrained need to compete for dominance and status and wonder if it fulfills any mandate to improve the lives of people overall.

I am not trying to sound like an idiot. I believe I qualify as an anarchist though the description of such is quite varied and misunderstood. Convince me that government is a good thing and not a self serving leviathan.

I heartily accept the motto, - "That government is best which governs least;" and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which I also believe, - "That government is best which governs not at all;" and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.
--Henry David Thoreau,
"On the Duty of Civil Disobedience"

[Warsai]

In Issue No. 51 of the Federalist, James Madison wrote "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." Naturally, a system that establishes laws to maintain order while recognizing and protecting each person's liberty is a necessity to any group of people, because people are not perfect, and we all have different beliefs, as was mentioned by Jack. A government can protect the people's essential rights and liberties, but it cannot please everyone. That's where voting comes in, the people vote for people that share their beliefs, and will work to make those beliefs a reality.

[Jack Sprat]

Originally Posted by Warsai

That's where voting comes in, the people vote for people that share their beliefs, and will work to make those beliefs a reality.

Did it work in the United States during the last two elections? I'd like to see the complete elimination of PACs, Lobby groups, and other influence peddlers, sectarian and non-sectarian, and then perhaps we'd be able to elect people who represent "the people" rather than those who provide election funding.

[koan]

If the purpose of government is to bring harmony to it's people, there has never been and never will be a successful government because where there is more than one person there are going to be disagreements.

Agreed. So if having an establishment called "government" does not accomplish this impossible goal do we REALLY need it and all the problems it brings with it?

I'm not sure that you are asking the right question here. Rather we may want to first consider what the purpose of government is before discussing whether any existing (or past) government has achieved our ideal "purpose".

In asking that question I leave it open to discussion what the purpose(s) may be and from that whether the purpose is met.
The purposes as I understand them are to ensure "liberty and equal rights" for the citizens and to acquire economic success and therefore prosperity for the citizens. I do not feel any government is accomplishing these goals beyond what is possible without the government.

In addition, each level of government may exist for different reasons. I consider that families have a form of government to maintain harmony within its membership and to foster the beliefs of the founding (ruling?) members.

My point exactly, I believe people can govern themselves.

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." Naturally, a system that establishes laws to maintain order while recognizing and protecting each person's liberty is a necessity to any group of people, because people are not perfect, and we all have different beliefs, as was mentioned by Jack.

This comes down to either a belief that people are innately good or innately evil. I believe most of the "evil" in men is learned behaviour bred by the power based society they are raised in that is maintained by government.

Did it work in the United States during the last two elections? I'd like to see the complete elimination of PACs, Lobby groups, and other influence peddlers, sectarian and non-sectarian, and then perhaps we'd be able to elect people who represent "the people" rather than those who provide election funding.

There are many flaws in the government that create a selfserving power hungry system that is won by a leader with the most charisma not necessarily the best ideas.

Why are so many of you reading these posts and not adding your points of view???

Thank you for asking this question, Jack.

[Jack Sprat]

> The purposes as I understand them are to ensure "liberty and equal rights" for the citizens and to acquire economic success and therefore prosperity for the citizens. I do not feel any government is accomplishing these goals beyond what is possible without the government.

When you set impossible goals, you can never achieve the desired results. At no point in human cultural evolution has there been either liberty or equal rights, not even for the privileged few. No matter where you are on the human food chain, there will be people with greater ambition, physical, emotional, or intellectual strength, greater wealth, influence, and force or personality to rise higher than you. As you climb over the backs of others, you too will be overtaken. When the apex is reached you then realize that you climbed the wrong tree.

Anarchy is not the answer, neither is any form of government that humans have yet conceived. It may be unfortunate, but humans tend to want to be bigger, better, wealthier, more powerful than others. We are imperfect creatures creating imperfect societies, with imperfect rules and imperfect governments to enforce them.

Isn’t it wonderful: since everything about us is imperfect we have finally reached harmony. We recognize that chaos rules, and we are as chaotic as the universe we live in. Those of us who recognize the impossibility or reaching perfection live in happy contentment. Those who do not, form our government and impose their view of perfection on us. Both groups will survive.

[koan]

Thank you, Jack and Warsai for joining the discussion.

I, for the moment, will assume that no one else can think of a defense for having a government.

[A Karenina]

Originally Posted by koan

I, for the moment, will assume that no one else can think of a defense for having a government.

I just read this thread the day after it was started; I lost interest when I read the above sentence.

[koan]

Originally Posted by A Karenina

I just read this thread the day after it was started; I lost interest when I read the above sentence.

It is not the sentence in the thread that I would have expected to cause loss of interest. My response is, I am not boring, you are bored.

I find too many people wish to state or think "You are wrong" and feel that the debate is won. I ask for opinions that defend the political system because I wonder how many people participate in it without thought. To vote just because you can and vote in a way that is customary not informed is a wasted vote. To support a system because we know no other options is slavery. We are here to refine our ideas. Someone may convince me that government is good or they may not. In the meantime I have a chance to explore my own thoughts deeper and others have a chance to realize how important their vote is.

It is not as if people don't have strong political opinions that they can share.

If a debate is to be won, it can only be won by participation. If you feel the subject is not "worthy", in this case, would it not imply that the government is not "worthy"?

[A Karenina]

Originally Posted by koan

It is not the sentence in the thread that I would have expected to cause loss of interest. My response is, I am not boring, you are bored.

I find too many people wish to state or think "You are wrong" and feel that the debate is won. I ask for opinions that defend the political system because I wonder how many people participate in it without thought. To vote just because you can and vote in a way that is customary not informed is a wasted vote. To support a system because we know no other options is slavery. We are here to refine our ideas. Someone may convince me that government is good or they may not. In the meantime I have a chance to explore my own thoughts deeper and others have a chance to realize how important their vote is.

It is not as if people don't have strong political opinions that they can share.

If a debate is to be won, it can only be won by participation. If you feel the subject is not "worthy", in this case, would it not imply that the government is not "worthy"?

I have really enjoyed your posts to date, Koan. Hopefully you already know that.

I was trying to make a subtle point that the sentence I quoted comes across as .... hmmmm, demanding?

The thoughts you are trying to discuss are complex. It stands to reason that people's ideas about them are complex as well. If a person can answer this thread within one day then they've either put a ton of thought into it already or they have a shallow answer for you. Jack and Warsai apparently have put a great deal of thought into already, as have you.

My answer has nothing to do with the worthiness of the topic or of government itself. It's more of a knee-jerk response to so much of our modern day dialogue. Let's do it quick, fast, use sound-bites...blech! I do not see how a person can address complex thoughts appropriately on a time limit, or any other type of limit. If the conversation has limits, then I immediately lose interest. Make sense?