What is the point of government?

[volinbham]

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.

I tend towards the we are electing representatives and the guard rail on them getting too far away from the will of those they represent is the ballot box. What the representative has to balance is if I stray from the will of the electorate to do what I think is ultimately in the best interest will I lose my job or ability to effect more change through longer service.

In some ways it's a take on the Fatal Conceit. Humankind/society is messy and will always be messy. Representative government is inefficient at doing things that might entail significant short term "pain" for the electorate but even greater longterm gain but it's a pipe dream to believe that even pure of heart representatives can have the foresight and knowledge to do such things.

Thomas Friedman waxed eloquently about the "benevolent dictators of China" and their ability to implement long strategies but we all should know that 1) significant short term pain can be the price for some of the electorate to implement them and 2) it is impossible to know the geopolitical future of a connected world so what seemed like a good goal in 2004 may be the exact wrong path given how the world functions in 2023.

My point? I lean towards the representative being enabled to do make decisions for the electorate rather than simply being the embodiment and just executing the collective decisions of the electorate. There are checks on the mismatch and while it's messy and the checks deter longer term strategies it's the best balance of will of the people and difficulties associated with the will of the people being too short term or too skewed towards the small majority.

During the cold war I remember a disagreement I had with someone about communism. My point was that if the will of the electorate was to CHOOSE communism then so be it even though they may regret it in the future. We can't structure a government to avoid all the bad decisions the will of the people might lead to. In our system the Courts are supposed to be one of the checks on that. The other check is a representative mentality where we elect and empower someone to make decisions for us and if they F-it up too bad then we boot them. If we wanted real will of the people government we'd go to straight democracy without representatives and we all know where that could lead.

 

[volinbham]

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.

true but the more localized, the more limited the damage. when it happens at the Federal level the damage is complete

 

[WoodsmanVol]

true but the more localized, the more limited the damage. when it happens at the Federal level the damage is complete

Maybe. Depends on what social strata, or ethnic group you belong to. Lived it up close and personal, in various regions. However, some are grossly worse than other places, immensely so. So again, it depends. You won't know or comprehend it unless you have walked in the same shoes.

 

[volinbham]

Maybe. Depends on what social strata, or ethnic group you belong to. Lived it up close and personal, in various regions. However, some are grossly worse than other places, immensely so. So again, it depends. You won't know or comprehend it unless you have walked in the same shoes.

bolded is true for everyone. we all have individual experiences

 

[volinbham]

as an offshoot of this discussion can (not should) government ever get smaller? what if any (non-revolution) mechanisms could lead towards the Federal government in particular relinquishing power? I guess we've seen it in some deregulation cases but I'd argue that the Feds have clawed back all their control even in those cases by replacing one big regulatory regime (eg. airlines) with a proliferation of smaller ones spanning a myriad of agencies.

 

[hog88]

as an offshoot of this discussion can (not should) government ever get smaller? what if any (non-revolution) mechanisms could lead towards the Federal government in particular relinquishing power? I guess we've seen it in some deregulation cases but I'd argue that the Feds have clawed back all their control even in those cases by replacing one big regulatory regime (eg. airlines) with a proliferation of smaller ones spanning a myriad of agencies.

Other than some monarchies ceding authority/power and transitioning to a constitutional system I can't think of a single time in history a central government has relinquished power without bloodshed. Come to think of it I'm pretty sure Britain's transition was due to threats of armed revolution.

 

[WoodsmanVol]

bolded is true for everyone. we all have individual experiences

It's OK. You haven't walked in the shoes. Such malpractices in government isn't just individual experiences, rather collective. But forget it, I don't expect certain people to have the slightest inkling as to what I'm referring, except those who have lived it. Bye now.

 

[LouderVol]

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.

number 3 was a leading question, which is probably why it wasn't phrased better. You are the first one that provided me the bite I was wanting.

If its about outcomes, how do you measure that?

Currently our government and largely society care about being seen to do something. Even if there are logical, easily understood, reasons why that something may not be helping the end goal. Typically we want our side to do something that makes us feel better about the situation, but when the other side is in power we don't want them to do anything, and certainly don't want them to actually fix the issue.

is dollars in someone's pockets enough to say it worked? Does a reduction in the size of government mean it worked? Does a reported reduction in whatever woe mean that it worked?

 

[LouderVol]

I tend towards the we are electing representatives and the guard rail on them getting too far away from the will of those they represent is the ballot box. What the representative has to balance is if I stray from the will of the electorate to do what I think is ultimately in the best interest will I lose my job or ability to effect more change through longer service.

In some ways it's a take on the Fatal Conceit. Humankind/society is messy and will always be messy. Representative government is inefficient at doing things that might entail significant short term "pain" for the electorate but even greater longterm gain but it's a pipe dream to believe that even pure of heart representatives can have the foresight and knowledge to do such things.

Thomas Friedman waxed eloquently about the "benevolent dictators of China" and their ability to implement long strategies but we all should know that 1) significant short term pain can be the price for some of the electorate to implement them and 2) it is impossible to know the geopolitical future of a connected world so what seemed like a good goal in 2004 may be the exact wrong path given how the world functions in 2023.

My point? I lean towards the representative being enabled to do make decisions for the electorate rather than simply being the embodiment and just executing the collective decisions of the electorate. There are checks on the mismatch and while it's messy and the checks deter longer term strategies it's the best balance of will of the people and difficulties associated with the will of the people being too short term or too skewed towards the small majority.

During the cold war I remember a disagreement I had with someone about communism. My point was that if the will of the electorate was to CHOOSE communism then so be it even though they may regret it in the future. We can't structure a government to avoid all the bad decisions the will of the people might lead to. In our system the Courts are supposed to be one of the checks on that. The other check is a representative mentality where we elect and empower someone to make decisions for us and if they F-it up too bad then we boot them. If we wanted real will of the people government we'd go to straight democracy without representatives and we all know where that could lead.

I guess my argument is that I agree we can't craft a government that avoids all negative outcomes; but it seems like we could create a system that actually rewards good outcomes, and maybe more importantly punishes bad behavior by the government.

At this point in our society I think its pretty clear to point out the connection between the bad results, and those in power. to the point where maybe we consider criminal charges against a particularly bad elected official. I could even see multiple levels. the "misdemeanor" just means you are no longer eligible to hold any office. a "felony" is a set jail time (5ish years), while capital punishment is 10ish years.

because I think a lot of the disconnect present in our government is from the complete detachment of the individuals who make it up from the overall entity of "the government". You can't legally hold the United States responsible for X; and currently that means the person responsible for X, is also not held responsible. Voting SHOULD be the check, but it isn't. especially for an unelected official. Maybe they should have some skin in the game.

 

[LouderVol]

as an offshoot of this discussion can (not should) government ever get smaller? what if any (non-revolution) mechanisms could lead towards the Federal government in particular relinquishing power? I guess we've seen it in some deregulation cases but I'd argue that the Feds have clawed back all their control even in those cases by replacing one big regulatory regime (eg. airlines) with a proliferation of smaller ones spanning a myriad of agencies.

The only thing I have been able to figure is working in a system that rewards downsizing. But I see it being the same issue in reverse.

The idea is that the government has a current budget. And there is a goal for the budget to hit that requires X decrease. Agencies have to adjust, but as they decrease the budget the individuals get a bonus based on how much they decrease the overall budget. A smaller budget would lead to reduced scope creep.

Its pretty easy to see the issue. 1 the decreases can only go so far. 2. we are incentivizing the firing of people. The people in power will be able to do that for a while before they are ever touched. It would likely be the fat that needs trimming the most that would actually last the longest.

either that or bring in corporeal punishment to government officials, make it tied to any wrongdoing.

 

[LouderVol]

It's OK. You haven't walked in the shoes. Such malpractices in government isn't just individual experiences, rather collective. But forget it, I don't expect certain people to have the slightest inkling as to what I'm referring, except those who have lived it. Bye now.

I don't think he was refuting you exactly. I took it as him saying it may not be as narrow of an application as you think.

its not just those who have suffered the most that have a right to complain or expect better.

 

[n_huffhines]

number 3 was a leading question, which is probably why it wasn't phrased better. You are the first one that provided me the bite I was wanting.

If its about outcomes, how do you measure that?

Currently our government and largely society care about being seen to do something. Even if there are logical, easily understood, reasons why that something may not be helping the end goal. Typically we want our side to do something that makes us feel better about the situation, but when the other side is in power we don't want them to do anything, and certainly don't want them to actually fix the issue.

is dollars in someone's pockets enough to say it worked? Does a reduction in the size of government mean it worked? Does a reported reduction in whatever woe mean that it worked?

This is unsatisfactory, but it's entirely subjective.

But forget about judging any single outcome or all the outcomes, I do believe that if somebody is genuinely, earnestly trying to pursue the best outcomes, they will generally do the job better than any other archetype of politician (the do-gooder/crusader, the partisan, the pragmatist, the deal-maker, the rule of law guy, etc.).

 

[McDad]

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.

If I view of government is it be a necessary evil (which is my opinion) and corruption accompanies that evil, then I have to conclude i want the least corruption (and the easiest corruption to uproot) which would point me to local preferred over regional or national government.

 

[McDad]

as an offshoot of this discussion can (not should) government ever get smaller? what if any (non-revolution) mechanisms could lead towards the Federal government in particular relinquishing power? I guess we've seen it in some deregulation cases but I'd argue that the Feds have clawed back all their control even in those cases by replacing one big regulatory regime (eg. airlines) with a proliferation of smaller ones spanning a myriad of agencies.

Government can get smaller. It can be Tribal.
Mechanism? Outside complete collapse, i don't know.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

No but they all (national/federal) should have the same basic goals.

They do. To take as much of your money as you will allow

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

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.

But not enough. We have to many Meatheads

 

[KB5252]

To divide and segment the population so they can better control the candidates in order to provide us the illusion the people decide who is elected. Basically to ensure that the interests of a powerful few keep control and give them cover to perpetuate their agenda.

 

[LouderVol]

To divide and segment the population so they can better control the candidates in order to provide us the illusion the people decide who is elected. Basically to ensure that the interests of a powerful few keep control and give them cover to perpetuate their agenda.

But what should it be?

 

[luthervol]

But not enough. We have to many Meatheads

So you view yourself as an Archie?

 

[LouderVol]

So you view yourself as an Archie?

I would be interested in getting your thoughts on what our government should be in regards to the questions I asked in the OP.

 

[hog88]

I would be interested in getting your thoughts on what our government should be in regards to the questions I asked in the OP.

Oh boy this should be interesting.

 

[luthervol]

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?

1. I believe government has to be a blend of those two. The decisions of the government should reflect the will of the people up to the point where the will of the people is illegal or clearly a bad choice. A partial role of government has to be to educate the citizens on why certain decisions should or should not be made. (Sort of like it is the responsibility of a company to educate its employees on why unionizing would be the wrong decision) It's necessarily how every hierarchy works.

2. The government must be both predictive and reactive. A global pandemic was predictable. An energy crisis was/is predictable. The issue comes when the citizens aren't onboard. When the question is, "how much are you willing to sacrifice now for future benefit", the answer is all to often none. We live in a world of instant gratification, quarterly profits, and the mentality of "how does it effect my wallet today". (Healthcare, energy policy, environment) Again - educating the public.

3. It's only human nature that with success comes added leeway and failure results in less leeway. The problem is often in our inability to define what success and failure looks like. Long term success often looks like short term failure, and short term success often leads to long term failure. We continually overly focus on short term thinking. (but that's what wins elections, that is what investors want from the stock market) - public needs to be smarter.

4. You follow the letter of the law until it becomes apparent that it no longer reflects the spirit of the law.

5. I think that everyone is more likely to agree with a decision which comes from a process they support.....or from a source which/whom they respect.

Think of how people would have reacted to the same directive depending on if it came from Obama or Trump.
Or a directive that comes form the local level, compared to state level, compared to federal level, compared to EO.