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"
Does Government fulfill it's purpose?
Does Government fulfill it's purpose?
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.
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.
Does Government fulfill it's purpose?
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.
I, for the moment, will assume that no one else can think of a defense for having a government.
-
A Karenina
- Posts: 968
- Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 8:36 am
Does Government fulfill it's purpose?
koan wrote: 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.
I just read this thread the day after it was started; I lost interest when I read the above sentence.
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit.
Aristotle
Aristotle
Does Government fulfill it's purpose?
A Karenina wrote: 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"?
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
- Posts: 968
- Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 8:36 am
Does Government fulfill it's purpose?
koan wrote: 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?
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?
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit.
Aristotle
Aristotle
Does Government fulfill it's purpose?
A Karenina :-6
Point well made.
I apologise for my lack of patience. It is not yet one of my virtues.
I actually have not put a lot of thought into the topic and this is why I am so keen to discuss it. Often my opinions are intuitive and I find the reason for it later. A little backwards. Because the words for what I want to say just come to me and I almost always come across the "supporting evidence" or explanation within a day I just kind of bang the thoughts out.
I am much more interested in hearing the thought out opinions of the other members and I shall try to be more patient. Thank you for the scolding.
Point well made.
I apologise for my lack of patience. It is not yet one of my virtues.
I actually have not put a lot of thought into the topic and this is why I am so keen to discuss it. Often my opinions are intuitive and I find the reason for it later. A little backwards. Because the words for what I want to say just come to me and I almost always come across the "supporting evidence" or explanation within a day I just kind of bang the thoughts out.
I am much more interested in hearing the thought out opinions of the other members and I shall try to be more patient. Thank you for the scolding.
-
A Karenina
- Posts: 968
- Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 8:36 am
Does Government fulfill it's purpose?
Jack :wah: Too funny!
Koan. Ah, you are a sweet person
I am sorry if I came across as scolding, but thank you for your kind and open-minded reply. Patience is a tough one, and I think I've demonstrated that I haven't quite mastered it yet either. (wry grin)
It was very interesting to read how you work yourself through ideas.
I form an idea very slowly, sometimes it takes years...and I mentally test it through several "layers", I guess. I apply it to self, and if it holds up, then I move on to people I know, then people I watch (I'm a huge people-watcher), and then I start reading books with conflicting ideas, then I track it through current events and history...and eventually - someday!! - I come up with my ideas on a topic. Maybe that's why I'm so stubborn by the time I reach a conclusion. LOL.
I wonder what avenues others take?
Koan. Ah, you are a sweet person
I am sorry if I came across as scolding, but thank you for your kind and open-minded reply. Patience is a tough one, and I think I've demonstrated that I haven't quite mastered it yet either. (wry grin) It was very interesting to read how you work yourself through ideas.
I form an idea very slowly, sometimes it takes years...and I mentally test it through several "layers", I guess. I apply it to self, and if it holds up, then I move on to people I know, then people I watch (I'm a huge people-watcher), and then I start reading books with conflicting ideas, then I track it through current events and history...and eventually - someday!! - I come up with my ideas on a topic. Maybe that's why I'm so stubborn by the time I reach a conclusion. LOL.
I wonder what avenues others take?
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit.
Aristotle
Aristotle
Does Government fulfill it's purpose?
posted by jack sprat
Now if we can form a government and the participants had this attitude, it would be quite successful. Currently both the US and UK have executive branches that are neither interested in hearing what the people are saying nor are they patient. And John Ashcroft (a blessing on his retirement) would never thank anyone for a scolding, rather he'd jail the person.
I don't know about the US but we have politicians that do not want electoral reform because it means they would actually have to work harder to persuade people to vote for them and take in to account the views of the people they are supposed to represent. Ours have kind of forgotten that they do not have an automatic right to re-election.
Now if we can form a government and the participants had this attitude, it would be quite successful. Currently both the US and UK have executive branches that are neither interested in hearing what the people are saying nor are they patient. And John Ashcroft (a blessing on his retirement) would never thank anyone for a scolding, rather he'd jail the person.
I don't know about the US but we have politicians that do not want electoral reform because it means they would actually have to work harder to persuade people to vote for them and take in to account the views of the people they are supposed to represent. Ours have kind of forgotten that they do not have an automatic right to re-election.
Does Government fulfill it's purpose?
This supports the idea that people, in general, prefer to maintain the status quo and that the existence of government may continue even if it is not working. It is in this case, perhaps, justifiable to fear the turmoil that would ensue if government was abolished. The time spent in oppression would surely cause a riot if people were suddenly released. Could you blame them? The people who have been abused and ill served by the existing forms of government. This is the biggest barrier to changing what exists. How would it be implemented? Even if there was mass hysteria and destruction, I think it would be a redistribution of the destruction being wrought upon other countries turned in upon itself.
If one believes that change is inevitable, then to fight it would only prolong the misery. I do think that the system will be changing and I wonder what it is changing into. This may be our time to choose.
If one believes that change is inevitable, then to fight it would only prolong the misery. I do think that the system will be changing and I wonder what it is changing into. This may be our time to choose.
Does Government fulfill it's purpose?
Good point, Jack.
So we have, existing government and the fear of chaos if it is abolished and organized religion as two noted barriers to "self government". I am trying to be patient waiting to hear from proestablishment members to find out what the other barriers may be.
I don't know why people think that a society cannot govern itself without creating a leviathan that becomes the self serving system we live in today.
By the way, does anyone know of a society that is not run by an established government today?
So we have, existing government and the fear of chaos if it is abolished and organized religion as two noted barriers to "self government". I am trying to be patient waiting to hear from proestablishment members to find out what the other barriers may be.
I don't know why people think that a society cannot govern itself without creating a leviathan that becomes the self serving system we live in today.
By the way, does anyone know of a society that is not run by an established government today?
Does Government fulfill it's purpose?
I can't help you, you make no sense, what the hell are you saying? The title Makes No Sense.
Everyone has these on their face? TULIPS.
Does Government fulfill it's purpose?
Jack Sprat wrote: Yes, but not human. Many animal societies don't. And, are you familiar with "A Sense of Goose?"
No, I am not. Is it a book?
Maybe we should accept that we are animals and study our comrades to see how they do it. If people are afraid of outside attack from predators...how are we protected from that right now? The middle east has/had a government, that didn't protect them. The US, if they continue attempting world power and domination, may find that it is suddenly under attack from the UN...there is no guarantee of peace because of government.
Paula. Calm down and read the title. Think of how the words connect...then tell us why you vote. Not who you vote for...just why.
No, I am not. Is it a book?
Maybe we should accept that we are animals and study our comrades to see how they do it. If people are afraid of outside attack from predators...how are we protected from that right now? The middle east has/had a government, that didn't protect them. The US, if they continue attempting world power and domination, may find that it is suddenly under attack from the UN...there is no guarantee of peace because of government.
Paula. Calm down and read the title. Think of how the words connect...then tell us why you vote. Not who you vote for...just why.
Does Government fulfill it's purpose?
Okay. I studied the goose.
I don't think sticking in formation because it takes less effort is a good enough reason to continue supporting a system that isn't working. If you suddenly realised that the head goose was flying into an erupting volcano, would you not break formation and try to get the other geese to follow suit?
I don't think sticking in formation because it takes less effort is a good enough reason to continue supporting a system that isn't working. If you suddenly realised that the head goose was flying into an erupting volcano, would you not break formation and try to get the other geese to follow suit?