I decided to go back to a basic question today.
What is the role of government?
There are several models of government and all of them are valid in one way or another. What is the central role of government? And does this hinge on the type of government?
If we look at all governments through time, there are a few central themes to the role of government. Primarily there is the protection of borders and the interest/security of the state. This requires organization and defense capabilities. Even in ancient times, the government had a duty to protect itself from outside forces. Farther, governments need to maintain infrastructure and maintain order. This has been one of the main tenants of government in China (and all early civilizations) for five thousand years. Governments are also expected to maintain its citizenry.
This is not a comprehensive study on the role of government. There is far too much information to compile it all into one entry. We can look at Confucius, Legalism, Cicero, Plato, Aristotle, Hegel, Lenin, Jefferson, even Freud, and hundreds of other men and ideologies that have been documented throughout human history. Each one lends their own unique ideology to the central role of government and the precepts behind it.
I really want to focus on the role of government in contemporary society and how it is fundamentally viewed today. I think there are really two types of government in existence today: Authoritarian and Democratic. Just about all other forms branch from these two. Republic, Constitutional Republic, Liberal Democracy, Anarchism, Communism and Socialism are all forms of Democratic government (in theory). Theocracies, Dictatorships, Monarchies, Plutocracies, and Oligarchies are all forms of Authoritarian government. (This is not a strict definition of terms, but simply clarification.)
In the modern world, especially in the West, Authoritarian governments are not looked at as positive. Today we hold freedom much higher than security. Let’s be honest, though: Authoritarian governments are effective and efficient. They serve all of the basic needs of a government. They allow for military protection of the state. They allow for high maintenance of infrastructure. The lack of dissent allows the government to move quickly and resolve issues immediately.
In the West, we add another quality to the role of government that we hold in high regard. This is across party lines. In addition to providing protection for the state and maintaining infrastructure, the role of government is to provide for its citizenry. The reason I singled this out is the high regard we hold in the West to this concept. (This is not to say that it is a quality only desired in the West, I’m just not ready to make a blanket statement for the entire globe.) We expect the government to provide for the people it governs.
Anarchism is probably the most focused on this, as it desires a stateless society, or at least one with full consent of all of the governed. Socialism has a strong component of providing for the governed, but with the least concern for actual consent. Just about everything else falls somewhere in between.
Most Western Democracies are Constitutional Republics or Constitutional Monarchies. (Typically the component of the Monarchy is somewhat limited compared to more authoritarian monarchies.) The role of government in these societies is outlined in their constitutions. Which brings me to my point of the day: The United States is a Constitutional Republic. What is the role of the American Government?
Well, the role of the government is outlined within the Constitution to some extent. There are the rights of the population as outlined the Constitutional documents, and the limit of powers of government. There is a lot of talk of the limitation of powers in the United States. But not to much talk about what the government is supposed to do.
The reason I bring this up, is that it has all become so muddled. Many of the same people who are claiming they want a “limited government” also want to institute religious laws for the population of the United States. And many of the people who want “expanded government” also want to place limits on religious and cultural rules. What do we really expect from our government?
I think we all expect our government to protect us. Americans are appalled at governments that fail to protect their citizens. We are even more appalled at governments that inflict harm on their people (including our own). There is a lot of debate on the issue of the Southern border of the United States. This has become a contentious issue. I think it would be in err to claim there was no need to maintain this border. Every government in human history had to maintain its borders. (The debate should be on how to best accomplish this, and to what end.)
We all expect the government to protect our rights as outlined in the Constitution. This is one of the tenants of the American Constitutional Republic. The role of Constitutions is to protect against the “tyranny of the majority.” This gets confused, as we also expect our government to be elected representatives. Americans expect their politicians to be elected representatives. We tend to also want laws to be elected representatives. This is something Americans expect, but it is not the role of government. The rights of American citizens are not defined by a popular, or electoral, vote. They are determined by the Constitution and common law. Many expect this as the role of government, until they disagree with it. (Ok, enough with the civics lesson.)
So what is the role of the American government? To maintain the state and protect the citizens? To observe the Constitution that defines the Republic and respect the rights of the governed?
How do we accomplish this? Well, the United States has components of accountability within the government. There are checks and balances. If we remove these components of accountability in order to become more efficient, then we lose part of the role of the government. Authoritarian polities are extremely efficient. “Mussolini made the trains run on time.”
The role of the government is not to “turn a profit.“ Running a state is not like running a corporation. The accountability of a Capitalist Corporation lies in the profit margins and the shareholders. The accountability of the American Republic lies in the rights and prosperity of the people of the United States.
Anyway, the purpose of this exercise was not to really define one aspect of the role of government, but to ask people to think about how they define the basic role of government before they make assertions on what the government is “doing wrong” today.
If the role of government is to provide basic medical care for all of the population, why is that? If universal health care violates the role of this government, why is that? To what extent does the government need to provide and protect its population? Can a limited government provide all that is necessary? Can an expanded government be properly held accountable?
One question I always seem to contend with is how one can reconcile a theocratic government with the First Amendment of the US Constitution. The role of government, in this sense, is to provide a secular governance. There are plenty of countries that have religious rule, the United States is not one of them.
My answer to the initial question of “what is the role of government” is: It definitely depends on the individual government.
This leads me to ask: What is the role of the American government?
“We expect the government to provide for the people it governs.”
As Tonto was supposed to have said to the Lone Ranger, ‘What you mean WE quimosabe?’. In other words, please do not include the rougnly 60% of us among your ‘We’. Collectivists are a bit too fond of including us in their nebulous plans to have ‘government provide’.
Protect us? Yes. Provide for us? No thank you. Provide for the general welfare, as clearly defined in the Articles of Confederation and by Madison? Well sure. But that definition only goes as far as preventing West Nile virus, Bird Flu, and other emergencies from becoming dangers that the States can’t handle individually . Perhaps it goes as far as building roads to facilitate interstate commerce. But other than for that and for defending us against foreign invasion, we absolutely detest the role of the ‘fed’ to provide for us. Providing for us the way a collectivist wishes to do so comes at too great a price.
The founders explicity left the issues of health, education and welfare up to the individual States. Obamacare flies directly in the face of that principle. Collectivists cannot and will not ever be able to ‘get’ that the 60% of us who want it repealed want it repealed for that reason; we want the majority in our particular State to make decisions about healthcare, homosexual marriage, abortion and most everything else.
We abhor theocracy more than you but we shall never trust the interpretation of civil rights to egalitarian collectivists since their agenda only observes the will of the people when it serves their interest to do so (e.g. the overturning of proposition 8). Under the falsity of protecting the minority from tyranny you seek to impose your tyranny upon all of us but the majority in particular.
It’s just too painful to the collectivist ideology to believe that we wish to preserve the principles of the Founder’s. So when collectivists aren’t distorting the the stated intent of the Constitution in order to usurp State’s rights (as you are wont to do), they are inventing the lie that we are racist and that is the reason why we don’t want to be coerced into providing for our fellow citizen’s healthcare and welfare.
Collectivists don’t consider themselves desirous of an authoritarian form of government even though hundreds of millions have only been subject to the most insidious and inefficient thorough running of their lives via Communism and it’s little brother Socialism. And it was rather disengenuous of you to include among these ‘isms’ the voluntary systems for wealth distribution that is a commune (or a kibbutz).
We are deaf to explanations that you may have for all the failed attempts at evil, coerced wealth distribution among nations but if collectivists wish to spread amongst themselves the little material goods that they accumulate – well, who are WE to object. That’s not evil – it’s just insane.
You wish to turn to government to provide for you. We would rather leave the providing for people to the ‘invisible hand’, that via income tax and other thefts, 90 years ago your types have effectively destroyed. WE seek to return to the pre-FDR, pre-Hoover days so that we may be ‘provided for’ by Adam Smith’s invisible hand, people’s uncoerced generosity as well as that thing that you say doesn’t exist – God.
It’s you and us. It isn’t WE. We have little but our DNA in common. You’re wasting your time complaining about us. Let’s get a divorce.
President Obama ran on a platform of Universal Healthcare and received 52.9% of the popular vote. How can 60% of the country possibly be against Universal Healthcare? The three issues the President emphasised were: ending the Iraq War, Energy Independence and Universal Healthcare. (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/issues/candidates/barack-obama/#top-priorities) 59% + 60% = how much percent? Can you have 119% of voters? (You can in Russia, evidently.)
Regarding gay marriage, you also stated:
Can you name 1 (one) non-theological reason to prevent gay marriage? One reason that has no basis in religion that gays should not have the right to marry? The will of the people are even irrelevant in this matter, as I have stated repeatedly, because of the Equal Protection Clause. 90% of the United States were against miscegenation. It did not matter, because it was a denial of basic civil liberties. Proposition 8 is an example of the “Tyranny of the Majority” that is so often touted by Conservatives. The fear of mob rule the Founding Fathers had and so attempted to put checks and balances against them. How does allowing gays to be married effect people who are not gay? Does it force non-gays to do anything other than allow gays to have equal privilege? (As it stands, civil unions are not enough for medical records or last wishes. If you are not married or related to someone, you cannot see them in the hospital or make decisions on their behalf, unless given the legal authority as a proxy.) Anyway, I’ll wait for that 1 non-theological reason to not allow gay marriage.
You say egalitarian like it is a bad thing. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Egalitarian doctrines maintain that all human persons are equal in fundamental worth or moral status.” The United States Constitution states that “all men are created equal.” It seems to me that the United States fundamental doctrine is egalitarian.
The Articles of Confederation were replaced by the United States Constitution. The egalitarian Constitution that advocated a Federalist Republic.
And then there is this comment: “We are deaf to explanations that you may have for all the failed attempts at evil, coerced wealth distribution among nations . . . ”
So, social security is evil? Medicare? Unions? Financial aid? These are evil? Not all attempts at coerced wealth distribution are “evil.” And some forms of wealth re-distribution that could be considered “evil” occur frequently in the United States. It is called gentrification. But, I guess taking from the poor is not as evil as taking from the rich.
Did you know that, in some parts of the Democratic Republic of Congo, it takes the police a week to get to you after you call them for an emergency? If you did know this, did you know it is because there are no roads or railroads that connect the entire nation? You have to wait for them to fly a helicopter to you. If you call an ambulance from one of these places, good luck trying to get to a hospital. And if there are no roads, how does the working class get to work? Or do we have them live in tent cities around their employers? Maybe we can have the police monitor them and enforce obedience. Sadly, this led to the Ludlow Massacre because those evil socialists and communists were out there demanding people be paid for their work and be given livable conditions.
You cite the Articles of Confederation like they are an authorizing document over the Constitution (which the Constitution says is not true.) You speak against the egalitarianism that the Constitution embodies. Who really hates America here? Which one of us is the one defending the principle document of the United States? Which of us is advocating sedition?
And then, you stated that “We abhor theocracy more than you” and then you state, “WE seek to return to the pre-FDR, pre-Hoover days so that we may be ‘provided for’ by Adam Smith’s invisible hand, people’s uncoerced generosity as well as that thing that you say doesn’t exist – God.”
Well, which is it? I mean, first of all, I never stated my belief in the existence of any god, or gods. I argue that it doesn’t matter, because the First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” It should not matter what religion a person practices, since the principle document states that the Government cannot hinder the practice. Supreme Court Justice Souter declared, “government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion.” The precedence is pretty clear.
How was it disingenuous of me to include Communism and Socialism in the non-authoritarian governments? These ideologies do not espouse any ideals of unaccountable leader(s), but rather governments that are run for and/or of the people they govern. I even pointed out that Socialism has less regard for individuality than does Anarchism. If you want to point that there are no idealistic Communist or Socialist states, I challenge you to find an Anarchist state. (I mentioned Anarchy, too.)
When those of you who feel this way no longer use public services, public infrastructure, social security, medicaid, medicare, government funded hospitals, the FAA, paved roads, FDA inspected foods and imports, etc… then I would assume that I cannot add you into the “nebulous plans to have the government provide.” Assuming you are not Amish and living on a farm off of the power grid and only providing what you can create for each other, I don’t think this is genuine.
And, I’m assuming, the answer to my question from you is “the government’s role is to provide the basic necessities and nothing more.” Is that correct? Because that was all I really asked, and just stated why “type” of government of the United States.
“but if collectivists wish to spread amongst themselves the little material goods that they accumulate – well, who are WE to object. That’s not evil – it’s just insane.”
Two issues came up when I reread this line. Both I have touched on. This is insane? So, it is insane to donate some of my money to help orphans, or starving children, or lukemia patients living in poverty? And then, I thought about it… you also mentioned Christian theology a few times.
So, how does one reconcile these Christian quotes?
I’m not attempting to get into a theological debate, but I just wanted to point out my understanding of Christianity was that it is a religion of empathy and compassion. So much so that it encourages voluntary wealth distribution, especially to the poor.
The Christian Bible is full of verses and quotes that command giving to the poor. How can demanding that the wealthy should hoard everything they are able to hoard be a good Christian ideology?
Maybe I am too “godless” to understand the concept of following a religion that dictates “giving to the poor” and then claiming that it is wrong to give to the poor.
I mean, wouldn’t Jesus be an egalitarian today? Would he not be a utopian?
Based solely on the above comments (that of my entry and the first response to it) I would contend that not only do I care more more strongly support the United States and am more patriotic to the US as a state, but also that I follow closer to the path of Christianity.
I argued the Constitution and was refuted with the preceding document, the Articles of Confederation. And I argue against theocracy and was told that “God” will provide for the people along with the “invisible hand” of the market, and that no one should be mandated to provide basic necessities for their neighbors.
To argue that it is wrong to legislate such a thing: Well, it is against the law to kill another person. Does that mean that people should be free to kill if they can change the law, or not be prosecuted? Would God really bless a country that discarded the poor and let people go without basic needs on principle? (It seems to me that He punishes nations that encourage greed and gluttony while lacking concern for the poor. Ezekiel 16:49).
“How can 60% of the country possibly be against Universal Healthcare?”
Please reread the 14 comment between you and I that I believe is in your post that has a title with the words ‘Don’t piss on my Leg’. You will note that you hadn’t responded well to the most recent Rasmussen Poll on this subject. In that thread you tryed the same argument but failed to make your case. Let’s not do the exact same argument over again.
Regardless, buyer’s remorse on Obama is a fact. So your question as to how it’s possible that the public voted for Obama , that his healthcare was important to his campaign, and now how it’s possible that 60% want it repealed, well that becomes an irrelevant question. We strongly disagree as to why 52% voted for Obama but we need not debate that since even the liberal pollsters now indicate that the majority are unhappy with his big government solutions of which Obamacare is the poster child.
Regardless this entirely evades the point that at the very least, half of us are not part of your WE that want to be provided for. And please dispense with the strawman arguments about utilities. If majorities in a State wish public services to be provided we are in favor of it.
Re the Articles of Confederation:
In arguing that the Constitution supercedes the Articles of Confederation you misunderstood the point being made. Of course it supercedes it but in trying to understand the meaning of the rather vague words ‘the general welfare’, we have both Madison’s words in the Articles of Confederation and in other documents in which those words are more clearly defined.
That defintion fits perfectly with the other words in the Constitution giving the States dominion over the areas of health, education and Welfare as well as everything else not precisely defined in the constitution as under the control of the federal government. You have spoken of your vast knowledge on constitutional matters so I’m sure you are aware that it is common to refer back to the documents of the time to understand the meaning of words set forth in the constitution.
Regarding a common misunderstanding of secular progressives with regard to the separation of church and state:
You as a human being have a value system. As part of your value system is the thought that the rich should pay a higher tax RATE than those who have less. I believe that this idea and your value system is all part of an immoral psuedo-religion. But what I think on this matter is of zero importance. You have your values, and with regard to the laws you wish to institute it is your business and none of my business WHAT informs those values; no matter how irrational whatever it imay be that informs those values.
The key is this: The fact that you wish to institute laws that are based on your values that might arise from a psuedo-religion in no way means that you are promoting a theocracy. It is only a theocracy if there is an official religion of the State and laws are enacted in accordance with promoting the official state religion. Without an official state religion, even if I advocated for laws in accordance with my religion because in my mind I thought there ought to be an official state religion it wouldn’t in any way violate the proscription against a state religion as set forth in the constitution.
As a result, those infused by their religion with values that believe marriage to be between a man and a woman are in no way advocating for a theocracy. It is none of your business why they have the values that they have as much as it is no business of theirs why you have the values of yours that we detest so much. If Christians were to vote to institute Christianity as the state religion and then vote laws for the purpose of promoting that religiion then you will have a right to complain about a theocracy.
And please stop wasting your words trying to interpret civil rights as being violated by the multi-millenial tradition of marriage. Your interpretation is entirely based on your biased value system and nothing more. Do you doubt that the original SOTUS would have not been amused by your interpretation of civil rights in this regard?
Re the Jesus stuff about compassion for the poor:
A) You, being a secular progressive it would be hypocritical of you to advocate for Jesus stuff. You think the Bible has a screwed up set of values in many areas so we are not amused by the weight you wish to give the Bible in areas that you interpret it to be in accordance with your values.
B) You haven’t the proper notion of what Jesus is saying if you think that he would have wanted you to give to the poor under penalty of being imprisoned; and such is the basis of taxation.
The threat of physical force to enforce ‘giving’ was the opposite of Jesus’s message. He wanted people to care for the poor because giving of your own volition is the good and moral thing to do. The concept of charity is nonexistent in Communism. That’s why whenever there is a disaster in some part of the world, the people in the capitalist countries always give more than the ones in the Communist ones. It’s not based on which nation has more. And it’s why citizens in the most liberal states of Massachusetts and California give to charities less than any other states.
Egalitarian: asserting equality of all people, especially in political, economic, or social life.
As a collectivist egalitarian, in the definition of the word you dwell in the land of the words that come after the word ‘especially’.
The constitution seeks procedural equality only – a value which it takes straight out of the Bible. Equal rights under the law. On the other hand, you, with your stated acceptance of affirmative action (even if only temporarily), you have no respect for that concept. Instead, as a Marxist, you seek SUBSTANTIVE equality. Your egalitarianism is like that of Lyndon Johnson’s who said we seek equality as a fact… not just as a right. Now that is evil because in order to accomplish this you have to steal from some to give to others.
So Hyena to answer your question, the government we signed on for, was not even the one with the role to provide for basic necessities. It was the one to protect us against physical harm and facilitate interstate commerce. It presumed that ‘the necessities’ would somehow follow.
But if the majority in your LOCAL area wants to provide a soup line or better, well then have at it; and ‘with my feet’ I’ll either support it or not support it by deciding if I wish to remain in that locale.
Good night.
I will admit, I fell off on those comments. I took a break and never went back to that page. Many apologies for that.
Regarding the Rasmussen Poll: Aside from the fact that Rasmussen Reports are notoriously Right leaning and skewed, it does not change my argument. I conceded that a large amount of Americans may not support this current Health Care Reform Bill. That does not mean they oppose all Universal Healthcare. President Obama ran heavily on a platform of Universal Healthcare. More than half of the country voted for him, more than 52%. My argument is that any blanket statement that majority of Americans are against Universal Healthcare in principle is fallacious, at best. (And it appears that most that changed their mind, were unhappy about the concessions given in the bill, and the lack of coverage.)
Regarding what was meant in the Articles of Confederation regarding “the general welfare” by Madison: Preceding documents are relevant, but not superseding. Really, it is impossible to know what any of the men in the 1770′s would have thought on most contemporary issues, though there is some evidence on a wide variety of things, including human rights and the separation of church and state. To state with any certainty how these men would have felt about contemporary issues is no more valid than stating how my deceased grandmother would feel about the iPhone and Facebook. What would they have thought of antibiotics and vaccines? Would they think these products should be made “for profit”? Medicine, in the 1770s, consisted of bloodletting and trepanning and ‘potions’ that usually consisted of toxic metals. Likewise, there was no Communist movement in their time, no Civil Rights Movement, no Women’s Liberation Movement. Undoubtedly, because of the laws of averages, and the events in Europe by their contemporaries, some of these men would have joined the Communist or Socialist Movement, like Albert Einstein or H.G. Wells. (The Time Machine was actually a Socialist piece on the effects of Capitalism.) Interstate commerce today is more than a horse drawn wagon taking four months to travel half the nation, or a ship that left East Asia six months prior to arrival. Many contemporary issues were not addressed because they were inconceivable.
You continually point out “states’ rights” and virtues of a “confederacy,” but also espouse how Communism has never been practiced as idealized and has always failed. Where is an example of a successful, modern day confederacy? (Many, if not almost all, of the “Founding Fathers” felt negatively about a confederacy, too. )
My interpretation of the civil rights being violated has everything to do with my understanding of ‘Equal Protection.’ I still do not see the one right being violated by allowing gays to marry. No law dictates that any churches have to marry gays. No law stated that people have to have a gay marriage. What damage does a same sex couple having the recognition of a heterosexual couple cause? If you want to talk about the original SOTUS, how would they feel about removing Thomas Jefferson from the history books? Or letting Black people vote? Or letting women hold occupations equal to men? Or wearing hats indoors? Or women wearing pants? Or men going out in public in a t-shirt?
Yes. I’m guessing you think it is appropriate to stone children to death for talking back to their parents, treat women like property, and murder homosexuals? According to Hebrews 10:28-29, all non-believers need to be murdered, as well. Or do we interpret some of those parables differently today? My faith, or lack thereof, has nothing to do with my point of quoting Christian scripture regarding fair treatment of the poor.
I do concede that Jesus would likely have held any incarceration for such a thing in high contempt. He also would likely have no wanted anyone to give to the poor if they so wished not to do so, as he would know they were to be sent to hell for not doing so. Still, the overall message from the Bible is pretty clear, greed and gluttony are sins, and having excess while other people go without is blaspheme in the eyes of the Christian deity.
Nothing could be father from the truth. Like my acceptance of Affirmative Action with an admission that is it not perfect, I feel that the issues become complicated as society becomes complicated and there needs to be a balance between what is “right” and what is “fair.” To go back to the Articles of Confederation and Madison:
The people created this government, not any God or King. It was a Union, not a Confederacy. They wanted to state this was a Union and state the ability to “insure domestic tranquility” because fo the Shay’s Rebellion and fear that a confederacy would lead to a civil war. They stated that “justice” would apply to all citizens. The general welfare also applied to all citizens. This preamble pretty much states the role of the American government, and it does not state that it only applies to defense and commerce, but to equal application of the law and the rights of man, free from any Church or King.
This presumption has really not led to very pleasant results. The Ludlow Massacre occurred when necessities were presumed but not given to the working class, as were a series of worker/production clashes in the 19th and early 20th Century CE. The Big Four emerged as robber barons in the 19th Century. I highly doubt the actions of J.P. Morgan, Rockefeller, Carnegie, Leland Stanford, Collis P. Huntington, Mark Hopkins and Charles Crocker were what were envisioned when the men who wrote the constitution stated “general welfare.”