NationStates

So after two days of trying to write a thread that would explain and defend the position that government shouldn't only be around to promote a healthy economy, I gave up due of my own incompetent writing skills. But today I thought to myself "wouldn't it be easier if you just made some sort of catch-all thread about the role of government?", and I was like "yes it would" so I wrote a thread very similar to this one and tried to put the copyright symbol next to the word "New Soviet Man" but that messed up the "post a new topic" window, and forced me to restart and make this thing! Now if you actually want to read the stuff that matters, ignore this entire paragraph and focus on the text below it.



My answer to that question would be that government is around to promote and encourage good and fulfilling lives for each of its citizens. This is different than the Liberal Egalitarian government, in the way that it would not take a neutral stance towards all lifestyles, but would encourage the lifestyles that are more worthwhile. I reinforce this position with my newly adopted Communitarian/Old time positions that...., Justice is not neutral, and that ethics isn't about action as much as it is about character. Although I do doubt some specific Communitarian ideas, But I think it's an altogether better basis for a just society than Liberalism.

What do you think NSG?

Promoting the general welfare of the population.

Many things

Wall Street has repeatedly come begging to Washington to do for it what it lacks the will to do for itself: Impose discipline.

That may be the greatest reason for government: to enforce discipline where necessary, when citizens are unreasonably unwilling to do so on their own.

To protect democracy and the rule of law, to keep society cohesive, to keep corporate power in check, etc.

Dejanic wrote:To protect democracy and the rule of law, to keep society cohesive, to keep corporate power in check, etc.

But why?

Deian salazar wrote:

Dejanic wrote:To protect democracy and the rule of law, to keep society cohesive, to keep corporate power in check, etc.

What about non-democratic governments?

The question was.

"What is the role that Government should take on".

Emphasis on "should".

Deian salazar wrote:

Dejanic wrote:To protect democracy and the rule of law, to keep society cohesive, to keep corporate power in check, etc.

What about non-democratic governments?

Are less legitimate then democratic governments.

Deconstruct itself and give the resources and facilities to the people.

Justice and Law and Order... Honour.

That's the role of government.

Prussia-Steinbach wrote:Deconstruct itself and give the resources and facilities to the people.

I didn't get the impression that you were a Leninist.

Deian salazar wrote:

Dejanic wrote:The question was.

"What is the role that Government should take on".

Emphasis on "should".

But nations whose people that want Communist or Monarchist governments should have democracy forced on them? Talk about American idealism....



Anyway, imo, the government should keep the people safe, happy, and well-fed. That's their primary role.

Sounds more like authoritarian romanticism you're peddling.

Deian salazar wrote:

Genivaria wrote:Are less legitimate then democratic governments.

Even ones who the people elected into power or wanted?

So the Roman, British, and Chinese empires were less legitamte than Athenian Greece?

At the time they were legitimate, now they aren't.

To protect the populous from each other and themselves, as well as external threats.

And also to encourage morality and discourage immorality.

Deian salazar wrote:

Genivaria wrote:Are less legitimate then democratic governments.

Even ones who the people elected into power or wanted?

So the Roman, British, and Chinese empires were less legitamte than Athenian Greece?

In the modern world we've shed the need for any authoritarian government models.
Anyone trying to cling to them is living in the past, not in reality.

Originally, it was just to keep laws and protect people, but now it's grown into things like welfare and controlling the economy, which I think is a good think. The Government shouldn't be seen as some sort of inherent evil.

The role of the government is simple to provide law order and a credible military against arch enemies like pakistan and china.

So

law
order
military

I believe the government should maintain the economy and provide a balanced budget or else the politicians should be fined.

Deian salazar wrote:

New Werpland wrote:At the time they were legitimate, now they aren't.

Let's say a government like a Monarchy took power, and the people didn't rebel, even though the monarchy had a small, ill-equipped military, and the citizens/people instead helped strengthen the government? And I mean citizens as all people, rich or poor.
Then it'd be legit.

Are we talking an absolute monarchy or a watered down Constitutional Monarchy?

The United Neptumousian Empire wrote:To protect the populous from each other and themselves, as well as external threats.

And also to encourage morality and discourage immorality.

Well I say it's moral to legalize prostitution.

Deian salazar wrote:

Genivaria wrote:In the modern world we've shed the need for any authoritarian government models.
Anyone trying to cling to them is living in the past, not in reality.

The type of government doesn't make it legit.
Do you imply that democracies are the only legit governments?

What if a monarchy came into power as hypothesized in my last post and was supported? Would it be illegitimate and the people's support of it not make it legit?

Now of course that has some factors in it to make it not foul play, so:

No brainwashing, no lies, and it was simply a rebellion supported by the people who wanted a monarchy.

wouldn't it thus be legit?

Same thing with Fascist, Anarchist, Democratic, Communist, and Republican governments.

And we all get to live in castles in the sky and eat cake every day.

Deian salazar wrote:

New Werpland wrote:At the time they were legitimate, now they aren't.

Let's say a government like a Monarchy took power, and the people didn't rebel, even though the monarchy had a small, ill-equipped military, and the citizens/people instead helped strengthen the government? And I mean citizens as all people, rich or poor.
Then it'd be legit.

But that wouldn't happen, unless it was in some undeveloped country from the days of yore. Democracy has developed into the true and most efficient form of government, there will never be another true monarchy ever again.

Mainly two things:

1: Provide for the common defense, both against external aggression from other nations, and within the population against those who would endanger the peace. A major cause of continued global poverty, despite generous aid, is the lack of comprehensive law enforcement in the developing world.

https://www.ted.com/talks/gary_haugen_t ... anguage=en

2: Providing for the general welfare. Social safety net. Consumer protections. Investment in public goods like roads, hospitals, and schools. These things are necessary for the continuation of civil society.

To solve collective action problems.

Rationale: We are, par excellence, social animals. We need to cooperate socially. But we also compete with each other within the group. And that competition can be good. It can also be destructive to the individuals concerned and the group as a whole. The point of government then is to ensure that the competition takes a non-violent, productive form from which all parties benefit in the long run. In other words: Adam Smith's "invisible hand" does not exist in nature - but it can be made to exist in society with the right kind of governance.

Deian salazar wrote:

Genivaria wrote:Are we talking an absolute monarchy or a watered down Constitutional Monarchy?

Either.

If the people supported an absolute monarchy without being brainwashed and lied to TOO much(Implying governments aren't made of lies ), would it be legit?

Same thing with a Constitutional Monarchy.

If, if, if.
Far-fetched hypotheticals isn't convincing.