Role of Government in our lives....
pearljamfan1212
Posts: 203
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 ?
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 ?
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
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.
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.
-Reagan
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.
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.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
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.
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.
Montesquieu, apart from being a Baron himself, was in favor of aristocracy (not that this is an argument, just thought it was ironic)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
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?
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)
exactly, they would only offer them/ make them available...not control
the bad
the ugly
The US government in its original form was a beautiful thing, adherent to the standard set forth by know1. One must recognize the genius of the founding fathers to understand the priciples of good government.
As for healthcare, it is bogged down by a beauracracy created by liberals. Until you create a smaller and more effective government which eliminates beauracratic barriers, health coverage will continue to be a problem. Putting healthcare in the hands of government is exactly the wrong thing to do. Smart government (key term) regulations on the industry is the right thing to do. But hey, if you'd like to pay for my lung disease, or somebody else's McDonalds-induced obesity, then be my guest.
Weird...anyway socialism and capitalism are two perfect political systems in theory, but never work in practice b/c power is involved. Interestingly, however countries that have taken on socialism seem much better equipped to be sustainable in the future than capitalistic societies. Both systems have had successes and spectacular failures, but I think socialism is much more compelling than capitalism.
No one could possibly argue that the private sector has adequately handled the necessary industry of health coverage. You're absolutely right in that the solution in this case is smart government, as it is for practically every problem I can think of. However, I see many on the right calling for no further regulation at all, if not cutting even less regulation, which is just no longer possible to justify, in my opinion. It's just if the private sector has failed thus far, a new approach is called for. Entirely government-run health care is not the goal, but you'll notice many Democrats, including the President-elect, are not calling for that.
Nothing is perfect, and the consumer should demand better always. It's much easier to justify privatisation if the concerned parties are more actively involved. The fact is, we're not as a whole. We're not writing our congress or local reps, we're not voting intelligently, we're not writing neslte and the fda about melamine in the baby formula, we're not demanding better of anything until we're directly affected. That's the trick. To say "it's not working in the hands of the private sector, so let's give it to the government" is a head scratcher for me.
And I think you could absolutely make the case for less regulation, but smarter and more principled regulation. If the system would adhere to smart, basic principles, and as a result not get bogged down in minutia, we could have a much more effective healthcare industry.
We should not be saying that all people are entitled to "healthcare." You pay in, you get. You don't pay in, you don't get. Kids excepted. I fail to see a justification for the belief that all people are entitled to healthcare as a birthright. You start making the rules up as you go, and all of a sudden you have to account for every "what if" scenario under the sun. classic liberalism.
But a more fundamental set of principles, and a commitment to adhere to those principles, is the best way for any institution discussed, in my view.
As for healthcare, smart regulation means better pricing. Better pricing means more people can get. More people getting means even better pricing (particularly when it comes to insurance), and so on, that's how it should be.
How do you post an intelligent resonse to THAT?
But to the point, the good document says we have the basic or "inalienable" rights of life, liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness. That's pretty much it.
Pursue to your heart's content. If you fall short, sucks for you, or me.
"They say our love won't pay the rent....
Hey, It's evolution, babe.
Evolution babe."
No wait...how's that go?
Give jim-jed-jammy-jam and barn-froggy a kiss goodnite.
Who do you think pays for it when i get called to an accident scene, and there are multiple injured in say a two vehicle collision. Say one car is full of kids, speeding and not paying attention to the road, and the other is a family just coming home from a days outing. All are seriously injured. Who do i go to first? Using your little scenario it wouldn't be the speeding driver, i bet.
Oh and the correct answer. Whoever is the most seriously inujred until backup arrives.
Sorry buddy, whether you like it or not, you are already paying for it in one way or another.
This is precisely the problem with the liberal ideology on healthcare (big shocker).
You always have the what ifs that seek to distort sound, basic principles.
And true, we are paying for people's poor choices, which is another libereal tenet.
You know, when you get down to it, a health plan isn't really that expensive relative to other things. For example, healthcare for my wife and kids runs me about 3'n change a month. Pretty good coverage, not cheap, but reasonable. I'd like the health industry to be a little more efficient, and I'll always take cheaper too, but perspective. And I'd be able to get on that plan for no extra charge if I cared to quit the cancer sticks. Choices. But, I can assure you I'll not be taking a single government dime in a worst case scenario. I'm like 7up there.
You can drive the fancy car, or get yourself an AtoBer and get some health coverage. Choices. There's no such thing as free, I don't care what they tell you. You can pay out of pocket, or you can pay with your freedom.
Again, that's easy to say when you are not in that situation isn't it. What about if it was one of your children? Could you sit back and watch them suffer and die a painful death rather than seeking out help for them?
The what ifs are the rare exception. They do happen, they suck, but that's not our problem. If we make it our problem, the everyone's gonna have a what if. You can see it already. I got a neighbor (who I really like as people), but they're obese, the dad's a self-employed plumber contractor, makes decent scratch, and they get $590/month in food stamps. It's getting rediculous with the enabling.
If one of my children get sick, they are well protected and will have the best of medical care. My sacrifices ensure that. Choices. But kids should have health coverage anyway, that's not something I would argue. If their parents don't have the means to cover themselves, I'm good with them living with their poor choices. Sorry if that sounds harsh. Healthcare could and should be cheaper, that we can all agree on.
Your language is so emotional, "suffer and die a painful death" c'mon, let's get objective and philosophise a little. You seem pretty smart, but you always get so dramatic. Just chill.