Role of Government in our lives....

pearljamfan1212

so this is a question I struggle with and know there is not one single answer.

should we have government bailing us out during this wall st mess. should government provide healthcare to its citizens? should government fund all of our schools? should government provide social security payments?

or none of that? or somewhere in between?

I know this is vague but where do you draw the line ?

OffHeGoes29

The government should have limited control in what we do and spend in our lives. I've seen government spending and management first hand, and if it was a business, it would go bankrupt in no time. Most people on here will disagree with me, but control over your own resources (money) gives you the most control and freedom in your life. I don't want the government making a decision for me as to how I spend it, or what I do with it. Because no matter how perfect a socialist system may seem, greed and corruption will find its way into any system and leave people at a disadvantage. Freedom for me is about two things: 1st is the rights granted to you as a person here in the US, and 2nd is financial freedom to make and spend with limited government control. I'm not talking about being greedy and living beyond your means, but for anyone who knows what its like to be stuck financially knows you can't do anything with out cash. It’s the foundation of how we live our lives in a practical sence.....and I don't want the government to have control over it.

One thing I don’t understand is how most left anti-establishment minded people want the government to control the wealth in this country? Even though they redistribute the wealth, they still have control of it. To me it seems kind of contradicting.

MattyJoe

OffHeGoes29 wrote:

Because no matter how perfect a socialist system may seem, greed and corruption will find its way into any system and leave people at a disadvantage.

Exactly. That is the fundamental flaw of Socialism. In theory it is a perfect system. In reality it allows for an aristocratic, oppressive ruling class to develop, because of the fact that the government controls all the wealth. That's not to say that greed, corruption, and the violation of people's rights do not occur in our country, it certainly does. However, our current system of government is the most effective system as far as eliminate such things, especially violation of basic rights.

Our political culture is ingrained very strongly with the idea of protecting basic rights for all people, something that does not happen as effectively in a Socialism because too much power is given to one group of people, the ruling class. Our government is structured in a such a way as to distribute power to as many groups as possible, hence our separation of powers and checks and balances. In addition, power is shared between the government and the people. The people can influence government, and the government can influence people. It was the belief of our Founders, and Montesquieu before them, that the best way to protect people's basic rights is to distribute power as much as possible. A Socialist system places too much power into one set of hands, causing oppression.

OffHeGoes29

MattyJoe wrote:

Exactly. That is the fundamental flaw of Socialism. In theory it is a perfect system. In reality it allows for an aristocratic, oppressive ruling class to develop, because of the fact that the government controls all the wealth. That's not to say that greed, corruption, and the violation of people's rights do not occur in our country, it certainly does. However, our current system of government is the most effective system as far as eliminate such things, especially violation of basic rights.

Our political culture is ingrained very strongly with the idea of protecting basic rights for all people, something that does not happen as effectively in a Socialism because too much power is given to one group of people, the ruling class. Our government is structured in a such a way as to distribute power to as many groups as possible, hence our separation of powers and checks and balances. In addition, power is shared between the government and the people. The people can influence government, and the government can influence people. It was the belief of our Founders, and Montesquieu before them, that the best way to protect people's basic rights is to distribute power as much as possible. A Socialist system places too much power into one set of hands, causing oppression.

Happy to see I'm not the only one who thinks so.....but Commy will comment here soon.....I'm betting on it!

Our system isn't perfect, but I still the best system out there.

know1

In my opinion, government's role should be the very basic - infrastructure, basic defense and creating and enforcing laws that protect us from each other.

I think the world would be a much better place if we let individuals and companies take care of the rest. With the drastically lower taxes, we could afford to help our fellow people... and do so in a much more effective and efficient manner.

Kann

MattyJoe wrote:

Exactly. That is the fundamental flaw of Socialism. In theory it is a perfect system. In reality it allows for an aristocratic, oppressive ruling class to develop, because of the fact that the government controls all the wealth. That's not to say that greed, corruption, and the violation of people's rights do not occur in our country, it certainly does. However, our current system of government is the most effective system as far as eliminate such things, especially violation of basic rights.

I'd say this is problem of any human society, whatever the politica system. I can't think of one country, or one period in history where this isn't/wasn't true.

Our political culture is ingrained very strongly with the idea of protecting basic rights for all people, something that does not happen as effectively in a Socialism because too much power is given to one group of people, the ruling class.

I know this is a matter of ideology, but socialism is not a political movement. You can have a "socialistic" form of government and a democracy. Both terms are not antinomic. Some countries manage this mix more or less successfully.

Our government is structured in a such a way as to distribute power to as many groups as possible, hence our separation of powers and checks and balances. In addition, power is shared between the government and the people. The people can influence government, and the government can influence people.

Separation of powers has nothing to do with capitalism or socialism. There isn't a power titled "irs" or "your money". It's the role of a government to vote laws, in your point of view you do not want these laws to meddle with your money - in my point of view these laws prove necessary sometimes. But we both agree that power separation is a good thing.

It was the belief of our Founders, and Montesquieu before them, that the best way to protect people's basic rights is to distribute power as much as possible. A Socialist system places too much power into one set of hands, causing oppression.

Montesquieu, apart from being a Baron himself, was in favor of aristocracy (not that this is an argument, just thought it was ironic)

OffHeGoes29 wrote:

One thing I don’t understand is how most left anti-establishment minded people want the government to control the wealth in this country? Even though they redistribute the wealth, they still have control of it. To me it seems kind of contradicting.

I can't speak for the left anti-establishment of your country but I think what is important is not really the redistribution of the wealth by the government. It's more that, if you work you deserve a part of the wealth. And if you don't society should help you get work. Because, the left believes that both of these actions are beneficial to the society as a whole.
Not the commonplace idiocy "let people live off of welfare".

And for the threadstarter : I believe, but this is a personal opinion, that a government's role is to guarantee you proper human rights as defined since 60+ years. And to do so, the government may have to edit laws that will impact some personal lives while looking out for
1 - the rights of the people concerned
2 - the good of the whole society.
At least ideally, because it's not really what is happening right now.

mookeywrench

Government should exist to offer resources that allow people to live to their full potential as individuals, it should uphold to individual freedoms, and it should protect people from hurt.

Commy

OffHeGoes29 wrote:

Happy to see I'm not the only one who thinks so.....but Commy will comment here soon.....I'm betting on it!

Our system isn't perfect, but I still the best system out there.

Socialism unchecked is very dangerous...our system is proof of that. neoliberalism/corporate welfare, its basically a system where the tax payers assume all the risk and very large corporations enjoy all the profit. A large corporation can take a grant to develop a new product (tax payer money). It then receives another grant if the product is considered worth it (again at taxpayer expense). They can then receive grants to produce that item-again all payed for with tax payer money. They even have a guaranteed market in most cases-the gov't-especially in the weapons industry. Still they fail. So we just hand them a few billion to keep them going. Tax payers assume all the risk, corporations enjoy all the profit. So no, it is not even close to the best system out there.

I agree with a lot of what you mentioned earlier...that gov'ts are inherently corrupt...any system is. Which is why I think we need a form of libertarian/socialism. The smallest form of gov't possible with resources in the hands of labor.

The key, as you mentioned which I agree with, is a very small gov't, whatever the system. But you kind of have to be careful...under capitalism gov't isn't the only authority...today many corporations have more of an impact on our lives than our gov't...in some foreign countries they literally decide policy with their enormous economic pull. Some of these corporations have more economic pull than Saudi Arabia-Greece. And the thing is, a corporation is a fascist institution...motivated by profit. That doesn't always mean the best thing for a community.

So in the case of the corporation, you need more gov't to keep them in check. very dangerous, I think.

Commy

mookeywrench wrote:

Government should exist to offer resources that allow people to live to their full potential as individuals, it should uphold to individual freedoms, and it should protect people from hurt.

I think it is a very dangerous thing to give government control over the resources.

Commy

pearljamfan1212 wrote:

so this is a question I struggle with and know there is not one single answer.

should we have government bailing us out during this wall st mess. should government provide healthcare to its citizens? should government fund all of our schools? should government provide social security payments?

or none of that? or somewhere in between?

I know this is vague but where do you draw the line ?

whatever people can't do for themselves should be provided by gov't. Things like national defense...

these bailouts are handouts, there is no accountability, no guarantees the money will be spent to help the economy. Its corporate welfare, and they are the last to need a handout. I have friends with families losing jobs, have to pack up and move...these are the people that need help right now.

And I think education maybe the most important part of a functioning democracy...people have to know what is going on as well, so an independent news source is also very important...one not held accountable by a corporation or a gov't.

so maybe gov't should provide the funding, but after that the intellectual community should be consulted as to what is taught. Its very dangerous to have your gov't in charge of teaching its citizens...things like the holocaust come to mind.

And SS payments are important, don't you think? Old and mentally ill really can't take of themselves...as a whole the country can take care of them.

Healthcare should be a guaranteed right in the constitution. Since when did we put a price on human wellbeing, and life in general.

Some things people can do for themselves...when they can't, gov't should step in.

digster

Government's role is not very simple to define, but I've kind of figured out my view on it; government's role is to provide services that promote the general welfare that the private sector has proven to be completely incompetent at fulfilling. Probably one of the best examples of this is health care. The private sector has proven to be inadequate at addressing the problem, so some government involvement is necessary. The excuse of "government is incompetent" is often if not usually true, but it is not a solution. The argument of let the free market reign does not equate with some aspects of public life. Some necessities of keeping up the general welfare will not generally be supremely profitable, which makes them troublesome business ventures. With things like health care, you see an industry that will not likely be able to generate huge profits cutting corners and shortchanging customers. Some industries are simply more important than a profit margin.

Also, I don't accept the notion that there are two equally partisan alternatives with nothing in between. Some of you guys seem to be defining government involvement as completely government-run programs (government-run health care, etc.) I don't think that is the solution. I do favor government regulation that makes health care affordable, not allowing insurance companies to discriminate on the basis of prior medical conditions, etc. I prefer working with non-profits and faith-based organizations, etc. to work on community development. These are the 'liberal' policies of a tax-and-spender, but they don't really seem to adhere to the definitions of government involvement in this thread.

pearljamfan1212

I see a few of you want the government to be in charge of healthcare. with a country this size, you can not afford it and it also would drive down quality. are you in favor of a private healthcare system along side some type of government run one?

pearljamfan1212

wrong thread..

polaris

i definitely believe in gov't oversight in many areas of our lives ... i do believe that if gov't is acting on the interests of the people - it is predominantly beneficial ... the problem now is that we think gov't manages our affairs poorly - often that is because they aren't acting in the interests of people rather corporations ...

Strangest Tribe

I believe the government tit should be reserved for the people not the corporate.

Strangest Tribe

pearljamfan1212 wrote:

I see a few of you want the government to be in charge of healthcare. with a country this size, you can not afford it and it also would drive down quality. are you in favor of a private healthcare system along side some type of government run one?

Same Healthcare affordable to all no exceptions no excuses however it works simple concept. No one should be forced to decide between their life and their home and no one should be so selfish to deny another their ability to be cured or eased into death.

OutOfBreath

Put simple, I would like a democratic government of the people to provide and uphold all the goods and services the populace deem essential for all. The government should strive for the welfare of it's citizens. Health care, infrastructure, defence, schooling, child care, all of these things should in my view be provided or funded by the public government. If this baseline is provided for, only then can one talk of any sense of real liberty for the individual.

That doesnt mean that the economy should be a stateplanned soviet-style economy. Just that in essential sectors, the government should be there to guarantee it's operation in a manner that benefits the population at large.

Peace
Dan

digster

OutOfBreath wrote:

Put simple, I would like a democratic government of the people to provide and uphold all the goods and services the populace deem essential for all. The government should strive for the welfare of it's citizens. Health care, infrastructure, defence, schooling, child care, all of these things should in my view be provided or funded by the public government. If this baseline is provided for, only then can one talk of any sense of real liberty for the individual.

That doesnt mean that the economy should be a stateplanned soviet-style economy. Just that in essential sectors, the government should be there to guarantee it's operation in a manner that benefits the population at large.

Peace
Dan

Yeah, that's pretty much it exactly, in my opinion. How do we all have liberty if we do not all have access to the essentials necessary for the common welfare?

Commy

pearljamfan1212 wrote:

I see a few of you want the government to be in charge of healthcare. with a country this size, you can not afford it and it also would drive down quality. are you in favor of a private healthcare system along side some type of government run one?

Our healthcare system is one of the worst among developed nations. Its broken, its costly, it has more red tape than many socialized European countries. That's if you can afford it.

Most Americans support a government run Healthcare program (over 65%, according to this poll http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/01/opinion/polls/main2528357.shtml)

mookeywrench

Commy wrote:

I think it is a very dangerous thing to give government control over the resources.

exactly, they would only offer them/ make them available...not control

Anon

OutOfBreath wrote:

Put simple, I would like a democratic government of the people to provide and uphold all the goods and services the populace deem essential for all. The government should strive for the welfare of it's citizens. Health care, infrastructure, defence, schooling, child care, all of these things should in my view be provided or funded by the public government. If this baseline is provided for, only then can one talk of any sense of real liberty for the individual.

That doesnt mean that the economy should be a stateplanned soviet-style economy. Just that in essential sectors, the government should be there to guarantee it's operation in a manner that benefits the population at large.

Peace
Dan

My thoughts exactly.