What is the point of government?

#27
#27
hog88 said:
The true goal of government is to grow itself, consolidate power, control its subjects and enrich the people in power. It doesn't matter what form or level of government you are talking about.
Click to expand...
see you are answering what the government side of "what should a government be" is. But you aren't answering from the other side. What should a government be? What should its point be? Should it exist only to be those things? Or should it exist for another purpose?
 
#28
#28
LouderVol said:
I am going to go back to my original question, and your responses.

What is the point of a government? Its not supposed to be too big, but its supposed to be able to predict the needs/future changes necessary. That requires scale. Its not supposed to be big but its also not supposed to follow the will of the people. If you aren't following the will of the people you are relying on a bureaucracy to make those decisions. Applying the letter of the law requires a consistently changing/growing set of laws to apply correctly, which increases the size.

either I need to ask better questions, or you need to redefine what it is you think a government should be. because you want it to be big, but you also want it to be small.
Click to expand...

You need to ask better questions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland
#29
#29
LouderVol said:
see you are answering what the government side of "what should a government be" is. But you aren't answering from the other side. What should a government be? What should its point be? Should it exist only to be those things? Or should it exist for another purpose?
Click to expand...

Asked and answered.

The post you just quoted is "what government truly is" not what it should be.
 
#31
#31
The Government. By Ron Swanson.

The government is a greedy piglet that suckles on a taxpayer’s teat until they have sore, chapped nipples.

There is only one bad word: taxes.

When I walked in this morning and saw that the flag was half-mast, I thought ‘All right, another bureaucrat ate it!

My idea of a perfect government is one guy who sits in a small room at a desk, and the only thing he’s allowed to decide is who to nuke.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol
#32
#32
LouderVol said:
1. Is it the government's job to represent the will of the people, or make the best choice available?
This is what I am struggling with the most when it comes to government. should the will behind the decision matter more, or should the outcome matter more when making a decision? What happens when the will of the people is clearly a bad choice?
Click to expand...

It should be the government's duty to balance the two. There are times when the people want something which violates the rights of others. Government shouldn't sanction that. There are times when the best decision is better for the whole even though it is problematic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#33
#33
VOLS INC. said:
The Government. By Ron Swanson.

The government is a greedy piglet that suckles on a taxpayer’s teat until they have sore, chapped nipples.

There is only one bad word: taxes.

When I walked in this morning and saw that the flag was half-mast, I thought ‘All right, another bureaucrat ate it!

My idea of a perfect government is one guy who sits in a small room at a desk, and the only thing he’s allowed to decide is who to nuke.
Click to expand...
That's like quoting Archie Bunker.
Swanson was a parody - A government employee who hates the government - I found him hysterical, as I did Archie.

We have lots of Archies and Rons.
 
#34
#34
#1 first - a key question.

I think it's a bit of both. As a representative government one argument is that the people's will is exercised in who they choose to represent them but their representative is empowered to decide what is in the best interests of those he/she represents or even not in their best interests but in the interests of the wider bounds of society. The check is that if they stray too far from the will of the people then they are removed from office.

I tend to agree with this argument.

The BIGGEST ISSUE with where we've gone is that so much of the decision making is off-loaded to non-elected employees where the "check" no longer exists. The link between decision makers and the will of the people has been irrevocably broken.

Effectively, question 1 has become moot (at least at our Federal level) because (well, one big reason) the decision making power is almost completely removed from the will of the people. We saw this most clearly when agency personnel refused to enforce policy changes from the Trump administration but it's not isolated to that example.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 825VOL and hog88
#35
#35
McDad said:
It should be the government's duty to balance the two. There are times when the people want something which violates the rights of others. Government shouldn't sanction that. There are times when the best decision is better for the whole even though it is problematic.
Click to expand...
how do you establish that as a rule that can be passed on from one set of officials to another? or make sure its applied equally across all matters?
 
#36
#36
LouderVol said:
how do you establish that as a rule that can be passed on from one set of officials to another? or make sure its applied equally across all matters?
Click to expand...

I don't think you need to theoretically - the ballot box is the set of guard rails.

In reality the machine is so resilient that even a rule wouldn't change the system.

At this point all I can hope is that the inevitable Leviathan of government moves at a slow pace as it continues to centralize power. Too late to reverse it's course.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#37
#37
volinbham said:
#1 first - a key question.

I think it's a bit of both. As a representative government one argument is that the people's will is exercised in who they choose to represent them but their representative is empowered to decide what is in the best interests of those he/she represents or even not in their best interests but in the interests of the wider bounds of society. The check is that if they stray too far from the will of the people then they are removed from office.

I tend to agree with this argument.

The BIGGEST ISSUE with where we've gone is that so much of the decision making is off-loaded to non-elected employees where the "check" no longer exists. The link between decision makers and the will of the people has been irrevocably broken.

Effectively, question 1 has become moot (at least at our Federal level) because (well, one big reason) the decision making power is almost completely removed from the will of the people. We saw this most clearly when agency personnel refused to enforce policy changes from the Trump administration but it's not isolated to that example.
Click to expand...
So then it seems like you are arguing the point of our government is NOT to follow, or even attempt to follow the will of the people.

have we gotten to a place where the government/elected officials have replaced themselves?
 
#38
#38
volinbham said:
I don't think you need to theoretically - the ballot box is the set of guard rails.

In reality the machine is so resilient that even a rule wouldn't change the system.

At this point all I can hope is that the inevitable Leviathan of government moves at a slow pace as it continues to centralize power. Too late to reverse it's course.
Click to expand...
within the frame work of our current reality, sure a rule would not fix the issue. But going forward is any government type doomed to the same fate? I think you saw the same fate play out with a lot of monarchies, the monarchs got away from direct rule in the day to day items, and others filled that role, until the system of monarchy got so big that it broke under societal pressure built up from the same slow leviathan?
 
#39
#39
LouderVol said:
So then it seems like you are arguing the point of our government is NOT to follow, or even attempt to follow the will of the people.

have we gotten to a place where the government/elected officials have replaced themselves?
Click to expand...

not at all.

I'm distinguishing between what ought to be (representatives exercise their judgment and straying from the will of the people means they lose their job) and what is (our representatives are not the real decision makers or have been co-opted into serving the will of other constituents)
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#40
#40
LouderVol said:
how do you establish that as a rule that can be passed on from one set of officials to another? or make sure its applied equally across all matters?
Click to expand...
I don't think you can. Furthermore, I don't think you should. I think the only the framework of the rule(s) can be established and passed on. The parameters have to be set in place and adhered to and then the decisions of the moment can be made.
 
#41
#41
LouderVol said:
within the frame work of our current reality, sure a rule would not fix the issue. But going forward is any government type doomed to the same fate? I think you saw the same fate play out with a lot of monarchies, the monarchs got away from direct rule in the day to day items, and others filled that role, until the system of monarchy got so big that it broke under societal pressure built up from the same slow leviathan?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure any government will end up where we are but it would be hard to avoid. It's kinda like a stingray barb - once it's in; it only works it's way further in.

the 2 party system
the power of special interests
the ability of bureaucracy to protect itself
the way regulation almost always favors entrenched industry leading to more power which takes us back to #2 above

even the most pure of heart elected representative stands no chance of representing the will of the people if that goes against the power structure.

I'm not advocating anything but continuing the stingray analogy - it's why revolution is the only avenue for a major shift in a governing system once the growth reaches a critical mass
 
#42
#42
LouderVol said:
within the frame work of our current reality, sure a rule would not fix the issue. But going forward is any government type doomed to the same fate? I think you saw the same fate play out with a lot of monarchies, the monarchs got away from direct rule in the day to day items, and others filled that role, until the system of monarchy got so big that it broke under societal pressure built up from the same slow leviathan?
Click to expand...
The monarchy example is a good one because the perception of the people being governed under that system is the monarchy is no longer deciding between will of people and/or best decisions. The people perceive the monarchy making decisions on what is best for the monarchy.
 
#43
#43
the government can better represent the will of the people when there is more cultural unity among the populace

the US has always a culturally diverse populace but for some time many groups did not have political power. to some extent even as out of power groups gained power the "melting pot" culture still kept the will of the populace roughly in the same direction. Now that power is widely diffused in different cultural views and we've gone to the "salad bowl" culture or even the "9-course meal" culture it's increasingly difficult for the will of the people to be represented since there is no will of the people - it's a myriad of wills of the people.

compare that to countries like some Scandinavian ones where there is more cultural unity and it's easier for a government to represent the will of the people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#44
#44
volinbham said:
the government can better represent the will of the people when there is more cultural unity among the populace

the US has always a culturally diverse populace but for some time many groups did not have political power. to some extent even as out of power groups gained power the "melting pot" culture still kept the will of the populace roughly in the same direction. Now that power is widely diffused in different cultural views and we've gone to the "salad bowl" culture or even the "9-course meal" culture it's increasingly difficult for the will of the people to be represented since there is no will of the people - it's a myriad of wills of the people.

compare that to countries like some Scandinavian ones where there is more cultural unity and it's easier for a government to represent the will of the people.
Click to expand...
Do you agree the concept of homogeneity is why government tends to be better when applied at the smallest level of population? (national < regional < local)
 
#45
#45
In general, governments exist to maintain a status quo of favoritism for elitists and their cohorts. One can dance around the parameters, but when poured through the strainer, that's what it comes out to in the end.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#46
#46
WoodsmanVol said:
In general, governments exist to maintain a status quo of favoritism for elitists and their cohorts. One can dance around the parameters, but when poured through the strainer, that's what it comes out to in the end.
Click to expand...

Your most lucid post yet.
 
#47
#47
volinbham said:
not at all.

I'm distinguishing between what ought to be (representatives exercise their judgment and straying from the will of the people means they lose their job) and what is (our representatives are not the real decision makers or have been co-opted into serving the will of other constituents)
Click to expand...
But how much should it matter if they follow the will of the people if they get the results. Are we electing representatives, or are we embodying our will into office?

particularly when the will of the people is divided? We are only listening to the 50%+1, right or wrong. Does that make it a desirable thing to follow the will of the people who largely have no idea what choice they are making.
 
#49
#49
LouderVol said:
I figure I will get a good variety of answers to this question I have been pondering for a while.

I was wanting to ask this generically, but I think typically people are going to focus on our government, which is fine I guess. So I tried to keep these questions generic enough where they don't have to be specific to America. And this is about what a government SHOULD be, without any consideration of history (We've always done it), or how our laws are currently written/phrased.

I am thinking more in broad terms rather than getting into specifics. And I would think its not one or the other, but somewhere in between. And some of these may not even be as binary as I am setting up.

1. Is it the government's job to represent the will of the people, or make the best choice available?
This is what I am struggling with the most when it comes to government. should the will behind the decision matter more, or should the outcome matter more when making a decision? What happens when the will of the people is clearly a bad choice?

2. Is the governments job to be predictive and take measures to stop things that haven't happened, or should government just be reactionary?

3. should a government care about particular outcomes, and see the happenstances of its people as matter of "failing/succeeding"? How does the government failing/succeeding impact the government going forward? Just because things are succeeding now, does that mean the government gets more leeway the next time? Or if they fail, do you keep growing the government in hope that you find a solution the next time, or does the first failure mean you wipe it out and never try again?

4. Should the government follow the letter of the law, or the spirit of it? which should be most important? Should changing definitions or times reset the "meaning" of a law? Same thing with holding the citizens to the standard of the law, is it the spirit or letter of the law that should matter more?

5. Does the type of government (the original form of republic where the state was a power holder in the federal government, our current republic where local majorities matter but not the state itself, vs a true democracy) provide any weight/justification behind the choices of the government? Does the means of making the decision lend any credibility to the decisions being made? Would our government making the same exact decisions be any more "justified" in making those decisions if your preferred version of the government existed?
Click to expand...

1. Their job isn't to represent the will of the people, it's to represent the people. If it's just about representing the will of the people, then leave everything to a popular vote and abolish reps.

2. I think people outside of government need to be pushing against this, while people in government understandably will feel differently when they are actually faced with making tough decisions like this. It's check and balance thing, more or less. Sometimes it's just a social check, but the hope is that it forces people in government to really pick their battles.

3. I don't have much to say about this (I'm not sure I totally understand the question) but I personally want my government to be libertarian, and as small as possible, but since that isn't realistic, I am far more interested in elected officials who care about good outcomes, over everything else.

4. I think it's the same for everybody, not just elected officials. Civilians, cops, politicians, etc. use your best judgment about when to follow the letter of the law or the spirit of the law. Even though we never really explicitly say this, we have a long history of practicing nullification. It's as American as apple pie. The existence of nullification where we generally have rule of law is an indication that we mostly believe in following the letter of the law, but there are exceptions.

5. IDK. I don't think so, off the top of my head.
 
Last edited:
#50
#50
McDad said:
Do you agree the concept of homogeneity is why government tends to be better when applied at the smallest level of population? (national < regional < local)
Click to expand...

It depends. Corruption and detrimental overt and covert malpractice occurs at every level of governmental policy. Fine examples of this can be seen in nearly every small town. Humans gonna human.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top