Who Should the Government Represent?

by **Shofercia** » Sat Jun 25, 2016 10:31 pm

Whatever your political beliefs, be it pro-Democracy or pro-Monarchy, the question is the same for the people: "who should the Government represent?"

Some argued that Governments should only represent those who keep them in power, ignoring the rest, while others argued that the Governments should represent the whole wide World. I think that the question is crucial to understanding how one views the World. Not really going to copy paste the poll here, I think that's self explanatory.

"OP, what's your opinion?"

I think that a Meritocracy is the Ideal Form of Government, so in order to enhance that, all Citizens of the country, even ones who believe lies about being called to do Jury Duty right after you vote, should be represented by the Government. If you're part of the Jury Duty Conspiracy, I have a bridge, for sale, in Brooklyn, it's half off. I think that the Government should also make reasonable accommodations for permanent residents and provide a Path to Citizenship that can actually be understood and enforced without a bazillion lawsuits, but if push comes to shove, Citizens should get preferential treatment.

by **Costa Fierro** » Sun Jun 26, 2016 12:27 am

Who should the government represent? Big business, duh.

by **Dread Lady Nathicana** » Sun Jun 26, 2016 12:59 am

The Citizens, of course. By the people, for the people. Only it hasn't been that way for a damn long time now, and that needs to change, and fast. Not to say we ought to put uneducated so and so's in there, but this business of only voting for lawyers and such? Bullshit. Open that up, encourage more people with an honest interest in helping their fellow citizens and improving whatever area they're running to represent - from town council on up to the goram president.

(Seriously. Could we do any worse? Really? Without say, voting in an illegal immigrant, or mole or the like. Or the neighbor's cat, say. No I don't care about the dog they voted in somewhere, that was silly.)

It's way too late, and I ought to have been asleep hours ago, but that's more or less my stance on it. Granted, the government by nature needs to /work with/ allies, and outside influences, and foreign powers, and all the rest. But represent? Hell no. If you're talking individual political positions, it stands to reason that someone acting as mayor would represent the city or town they're mayor of. Governor, the state. Representative or Senator, all those in their districts and such. No, not just those who vote for them, but /all/ the people. That goes right on up to the president, who is supposed to represent us, and our country.

Oh gods, the next four years ... the horror, people. The absolute horror ... :shock:

by **Freefall11111** » Sun Jun 26, 2016 2:13 am

by **Arachaea** » Sun Jun 26, 2016 2:19 am

The government should represent the people of the nation, no matter who they are.

by **Mattopilos** » Sun Jun 26, 2016 2:22 am

If they don't represent the people, then the government isn't for the people... so I am going for everyone that is a citizen of the country.

by **The Qeiiam Star Cluster** » Sun Jun 26, 2016 2:22 am

Me, me, me! It's all about me!

by **Risottia** » Sun Jun 26, 2016 2:46 am

Uhhh interesting question.

I'd split my reply according to the various branches.

Head of State: represents the nation as a whole, including citizens, residents, and everyone's who's in the country or from it

Parliament: represents the electors, including those who abstained from voting

Cabinet: doesn't represent anyone

Judiciary: doesn't represent anyone

by **Sack Jackpot Winners** » Sun Jun 26, 2016 2:59 am

Just like a lawyer acts in your interest and not the court, so should politicians act in their voting bases' interest.

by **Neu Leonstein** » Sun Jun 26, 2016 3:10 am

I would say the "society" of that country. To me that includes every part of the community, including non-citizen residents and even more temporary members of the society, like refugees. Basically every deeper philosophical underpinning of good governance, the rights, responsibilities and powers of government and so on seems to address a fairly broad definition of "society" as all the people who are living together in this place and form a community.

"Citizenship" is another layer on top of this, like a formal, legalistic recognition that one forms part of the society. While I can see that such a piece of paper can be handy, there is no sense in which the justifications for government logically apply only to legally-defined members of society and not to anyone who lacks the piece of paper for whatever reason.

by **Lesser Mackonia** » Sun Jun 26, 2016 3:21 am

Nobody, the government is made up of individuals who should puruse their own interests.

by **Esternial** » Sun Jun 26, 2016 3:49 am

The people. They should be a proxy for the people's views. An ideal leader would be one who approximates the overall views of the public best.

Like the best alignment of very shitty sequences (i.e. individual's ideologies). They won't all be completely compatible but you look for the most optimal/least shitty alignment.

by **Hurdegaryp** » Sun Jun 26, 2016 4:02 am

Dread Lady Nathicana wrote:Oh gods, the next four years ... the horror, people. The absolute horror ...

by **Valaran** » Sun Jun 26, 2016 4:09 am

by **Internationalist Bastard** » Sun Jun 26, 2016 4:57 am

Personally I'm an advocate of direct democracy.
I think anyone who lives i the country, obeys the law, and pays taxes has a right to say in government.

by **Internationalist Bastard** » Sun Jun 26, 2016 4:58 am

Hurdegaryp wrote:
Dread Lady Nathicana wrote:Oh gods, the next four years ... the horror, people. The absolute horror ...

That sounds like my kind of party

by **Forsher** » Sun Jun 26, 2016 5:16 am

Neu Leonstein wrote:I would say the "society" of that country. To me that includes every part of the community, including non-citizen residents and even more temporary members of the society, like refugees. Basically every deeper philosophical underpinning of good governance, the rights, responsibilities and powers of government and so on seems to address a fairly broad definition of "society" as all the people who are living together in this place and form a community.

"Citizenship" is another layer on top of this, like a formal, legalistic recognition that one forms part of the society. While I can see that such a piece of paper can be handy, there is no sense in which the justifications for government logically apply only to legally-defined members of society and not to anyone who lacks the piece of paper for whatever reason.

Is it just me or are the poll options deliberately written to delegitimise this argument?

Although I don't see refugees as being temporary members of a society and I'm not sure I agree with the reasoning that they are temporary. Nor do I see "living" and "temporary" as coexisting (in this context).

by **Divitaen** » Sun Jun 26, 2016 5:38 am

Meritocracy is a terrible concept, its basically one where people with privileges and superior access to educational resources get to dominate and rule society down to the next generation and beyond, its what messed up my country of Singapore. The government should represent the interests and welfare of the people, first and foremost.

by **Lesser Mackonia** » Sun Jun 26, 2016 5:44 am

Divitaen wrote:Meritocracy is a terrible concept, its basically one where people with privileges and superior access to educational resources get to dominate and rule society down to the next generation and beyond, its what messed up my country of Singapore. The government should represent the interests and welfare of the people, first and foremost.

"I don't know what Meritocracy means"

by **Divitaen** » Sun Jun 26, 2016 5:57 am

Lesser Mackonia wrote:
Divitaen wrote:Meritocracy is a terrible concept, its basically one where people with privileges and superior access to educational resources get to dominate and rule society down to the next generation and beyond, its what messed up my country of Singapore. The government should represent the interests and welfare of the people, first and foremost.

"I don't know what Meritocracy means"

When you give special privileges to people based merely on talent and ability, that's exactly the kind of stratification and elitism you create.

by **Lesser Mackonia** » Sun Jun 26, 2016 6:05 am

Divitaen wrote:
Lesser Mackonia wrote:
"I don't know what Meritocracy means"

When you give special privileges to people based merely on talent and ability, that's exactly the kind of stratification and elitism you create.

There's nothing wrong with stratification in itself. You just need to make sure it arises from initial equality, as Singapore still maintains altruistic-collectivist institutions like the family, its Meritocracy is impure: but still superior to any other state on the planet. If anything, you are giving a criticism of democratic-collectivism, not Meritocracy, as the flaw lies in the altruistic elements left in the system.

by **Socialist Nordia** » Sun Jun 26, 2016 9:39 am

The government should represent all residents, regardless of whether they votes, or if they're considered a citizen. If you live there legally, the government should represent you.

by **Europe and Oceania** » Sun Jun 26, 2016 10:33 am

Sack Jackpot Winners wrote:Just like a lawyer acts in your interest and not the court, so should politicians act in their voting bases' interest.

Defense Lawyers don't care about their clients, they just care the about the money, about the profit, if you don't have money then get a
public defender.

by **The balkens** » Sun Jun 26, 2016 10:39 am

Divitaen wrote:Meritocracy is a terrible concept, its basically one where people with privileges and superior access to educational resources get to dominate and rule society down to the next generation and beyond, its what messed up my country of Singapore. The government should represent the interests and welfare of the people, first and foremost.

Thats not what meritocracy is.

at fucking all.

by **The New Sea Territory** » Sun Jun 26, 2016 10:39 am

The government should "represent" no one, because everyone should be a part of it.