How Much Government is Appropriate?

[matttherobot]

What should government's proper role in our society and economy be? All viewpoints welcome!!!

Discuss!

[stephen5000]

There's a lot that can be said here, so I'll start with something simple.

I believe that government should be used to improve the livelihoods of people and to generally increase the happiness of society. The extent to which it needs to interfere and control aspects of society can vary greatly depending on the society itself. We just have to keep in mind that the government should be a tool to help better society and as such should be fluid and most certainly not propped up as a sacred unquestioned authority.

In our current hyper-capitalist society, which emphasizes self-interest, greed and indifference, I think society needs all the help we can get. Personally, I support a social democracy, however we should remain highly critical of all aspects of any government.

[RabbitWho]

Government areas:
Services:
Health
Education
Economy (watching what's going on, fair trade, tax incentives, all that)
Space + Science ( It's becoming more and more possible for these things to be privatized and this will make a huge difference in the future, but the government will still need to research the things that don't make immediate economy sense but would be of huge benefit to the world)
Police

Not government areas:
Anything people do which doesn't hurt anyone



They are there to provide protection and services, they are not there to interfere with the day to day lives of people at all.

I think if it's done right economic sense = world benefit. We all only have a certain number of hours and a certain amount of resources in our lives, and money is just representative of the proportion of that we spend working and how many more hours are saved or generated from that time spent working.
But it's all got to be watched really really really carefully.
You've got to understand that capitalism is just a word for the way things are, money can't come out of no where it has to come from somewhere.
Take Dan, someone wants a t-shirt, they work for 2 hours so they can have that t-shirt. But as they can't send "two hours work" to Dan they send the money they earned in 2 hours.
If we say "we don't have enough money" for something it means we don't have enough time and we don't have the ability to generate things that other people want which we can trade for things we want. That's just the way things are. You can't get money out of no where, and anyone who says "Free education" but doesn't tell you where the money will come from isn't realistic. It is the exact same as saying "Free corn" but not having any corn or a field in which to grow the corn. (because the corn is traded for money and the money is traded for education)
Of course it needs to be carefully monitored to make sure no one is stealing anyone else's corn or making unfair trades. But with that things can be as good as they can get.

"Modern Europe" is not socialist. Absolutely not.

Social Capitalism is evolving and it's going to be the thing of the future I think. Gonna be pretty awesome.

[matttherobot]

@stephen 5000
I think most people would say that government should do what it can to improve its constituents lives, but the differences come in when one asks how you do that.

Why do you say we are hyper-capitalist? How would you recommend making people less selfish? It seems to be human nature, unfortunately.

RabbitWho
In which areas are you satisfied by our government? Do you think they do a good job?

You said that government shouldn't do anything to hurt anyone or interfere with peoples lives, yet you list that governments responsibilities should include health, education, economy, space, science, and police. Doesn't the government have to interfere with people to finance and implement these services?

How often do you think the government gets "it" right? At least from my vantage point, the government makes a lot of mistakes, don't you think that asking it to be perfect, or at least better than the alternatives in some areas a lot to ask?

On your capitalism bit. Capitalism refers to a market economy in which private people own the means of production. Currently in the United States, we do not live with capitalist economy, but rather a mixed economy. This means that there is a large private sector, but the government also plays a role in regulating, subsidizing, taxing, and replacing certain parts of the economy. As for money, money really represents value (or at least perceived value), rather than raw input or output. If Dan spends 1000 hours making a shirt, he isn't going to get paid any more than if he made the same quality shirt in 2 hours.

Maybe I shouldn't have listed Europe as purely socialist, but it does have heavily socialized areas (health care, transportation, welfare, etc.).

What makes you say that "social capitalism" will be awesome? What about it in-particular will it do better than our current system or alternative systems. Don't the perils of countries like Greece and Spain worry you about that style of system?

[ninjaearl]

I try not to make broad, overcasting statements about things, or say things are blatantly wrong... but as far as anarchy goes as an option that received votes, I would make an exception. I'm just not seeing legitimate civilization being run without any government at all.

[Silverrida]

Just a note before I begin: Communism is a type of economy, not a type of government.

Anyway, I am all for government control, as long as it is a true democracy. Not like America's crappy Representative Democracy, but based completely upon popular vote. I believe a government for which we elect everything for would force people to examine platforms more, causing them to think more. It would also require a stronger response from the government to keep order, under the idea of Social Contract. We already allow the Government to control many things in America, yet anything infringing on something that wasn't set in stone a century ago seems to be "INFRINGEMENT OF OUR RIGHTS" even if it is for the betterment of everyone. This is completely ridiculous.

However, the problem with a complete socialism is that it requires everyone to properly do their part, very difficult for largely populated countries, especially since we all fall under the human condition of imperfection. People who we elect for power that we think will be excellent will have control over all monetary distribution and country projects. This tempts people to use this power incorrectly.

Therefore, even though I think a socialist society (Actually, anarchy in the situation all humans are perfect) is best for almost any country, it is impractical when actually applied.

[matttherobot]

Apr 8, 2010 22:15:36 GMT -5 ninjaearl said:

I try not to make broad, overcasting statements about things, or say things are blatantly wrong... but as far as anarchy goes as an option that received votes, I would make an exception. I'm just not seeing legitimate civilization being run without any government at all.

I tend to agree. For myself, I tend to favor a limited, but valuable role for government. I have a hard time seeing a state of anarchy that lasts and prospers for a significant amount of time.

[ninjaearl]

Yeah, anarchy would work fine if humans were perfect... but, instead, >Somalia

[matttherobot]

Apr 8, 2010 22:24:07 GMT -5 Silverrida said:

Just a note before I begin: Communism is a type of economy, not a type of government.

Anyway, I am all for government control, as long as it is a true democracy. Not like America's crappy Representative Democracy, but based completely upon popular vote. I believe a government for which we elect everything for would force people to examine platforms more, causing them to think more. It would also require a stronger response from the government to keep order, under the idea of Social Contract. We already allow the Government to control many things in America, yet anything infringing on something that wasn't set in stone a century ago seems to be "INFRINGEMENT OF OUR RIGHTS" even if it is for the betterment of everyone. This is completely ridiculous.

However, the problem with a complete socialism is that it requires everyone to properly do their part, very difficult for largely populated countries, especially since we all fall under the human condition of imperfection. People who we elect for power that we think will be excellent will have control over all monetary distribution and country projects. This tempts people to use this power incorrectly.

Therefore, even though I think a capitalist society (Actually, anarchy in the situation all humans are perfect) is best for almost any country, it is impractical when actually applied.

Interesting points on popular democracy. However, do you think people would actually take the time to learn all the issues? There is a concept in politics called "rational ignorance." It says that in order for a person to learn and become completely informed on political issues, massive time and energy must be used. This would be naturally impracticable for anyone who would also want to pursue a career or a family, and not just study political issues all day. The way people solve this is through representation. In a sense, we elect people to spend their time to understand the issues, so we can do other things. Ask yourself, if you were to become a fully informed voter, on both sides of all issues, would you be able to do much else other than that?

I do agree with you on your points about controlling the economy. Asking a group of people to fully understand and than control an economy consisting of hundreds of millions of people, each with their own incentives and desires, and how government policies will change these incentives, is pretty silly. One of the beautiful things about a free-market economy, is that we don't ask the politicians to do these things, but rather let each individual decide for themselves.

Why do you say capitalism is impractical (or were you referring to anarchy)?

[Silverrida]

Apr 8, 2010 22:35:32 GMT -5 matttherobot said:

Apr 8, 2010 22:24:07 GMT -5 Silverrida said:

Just a note before I begin: Communism is a type of economy, not a type of government.

Anyway, I am all for government control, as long as it is a true democracy. Not like America's crappy Representative Democracy, but based completely upon popular vote. I believe a government for which we elect everything for would force people to examine platforms more, causing them to think more. It would also require a stronger response from the government to keep order, under the idea of Social Contract. We already allow the Government to control many things in America, yet anything infringing on something that wasn't set in stone a century ago seems to be "INFRINGEMENT OF OUR RIGHTS" even if it is for the betterment of everyone. This is completely ridiculous.

However, the problem with a complete socialism is that it requires everyone to properly do their part, very difficult for largely populated countries, especially since we all fall under the human condition of imperfection. People who we elect for power that we think will be excellent will have control over all monetary distribution and country projects. This tempts people to use this power incorrectly.

Therefore, even though I think a capitalist society (Actually, anarchy in the situation all humans are perfect) is best for almost any country, it is impractical when actually applied.

Interesting points on popular democracy. However, do you think people would actually take the time to learn all the issues? There is a concept in politics called "rational ignorance." It says that in order for a person to learn and become completely informed on political issues, massive time and energy must be used. This would be naturally impracticable for anyone who would also want to pursue a career or a family, and not just study political issues all day. The way people solve this is through representation. In a sense, we elect people to spend their time to understand the issues, so we can do other things. Ask yourself, if you were to become a fully informed voter, on both sides of all issues, would you be able to do much else other than that?

I do agree with you on your points about controlling the economy. Asking a group of people to fully understand and than control an economy consisting of hundreds of millions of people, each with their own incentives and desires, and how government policies will change these incentives, is pretty silly. One of the beautiful things about a free-market economy, is that we don't ask the politicians to do these things, but rather let each individual decide for themselves.

Why do you say capitalism is impractical (or were you referring to anarchy)?

I meant socialism/anarchy in the last paragraph. I edited it for accuracy.

You bring up a good point on studying politics. It is very difficult to know all sides of a platform or an argument. In fact, I propose such a complete understanding is impossible. I think that in such a circumstance, a decently educated to majorly educated opinion is sufficient for voting. The problem is, most people don't want to even put that much effort in it.

It all comes back to the fallacies of mankind. Such a shame.

[stephen5000]

While I consider government Accountability to be an import issue, I strongly oppose direct democracy, for many reasons:

education & political interest: People who aren't well educated on various issues will simply not know which is the best choice for them and those who lack political interest will either not vote (in which case they are not represented and it is no longer a true democracy) or simply not care which way they vote. In any case, those who are educated and have the drive to vote on important issues may find that they have little affect on the outcome.

influence: Many people are easily influenced by advertising and may make decisions based on ads and on rhetoric, rather than properly educating themselves on the issue. Look in business: the most successful companies are those that have the best advertising and marketing strategies, not necessarily the best product.

tyranny of the majority: In a direct democracy, public opinion is the law. Minorities will be oppressed by such a system. Civil rights are much more easily brought along by elected representatives who do indeed represent all of their constituents, not just the majority. Think about how gay rights are consistently voted against when they are brought to the general public.

practicality: This one is a bit obvious; how do we get everyone to vote? Many people have trouble taking time out of their busy schedules to vote only once a year; how would they cope with voting practically every day? (This is mostly a logistics issue that I'm sure can be gotten around, but there is still the issue of voter apathy.)

and I'm sure there are may others I can't think of at the moment.


Now, as to how to change humanity and society's outlook on the world and itself, well that's a long and hard task, but something that has and will continue to be done. For starters, that's what pogotribe is all about, right?

[iamlocke]

Well I believe that the United States couldn't handle direct democracy. Why I mean by this is that the way our society is, people who are more popular, would be running the government. One has to keep in mind mob mentality, for example ask any working class voter about who they would vote for, at least in my case, the chose Obama. When asked why, because he was not a republican or simply because he was half black. No one really knew the issues at hand.

Anyway, no on the issue of government control. I honestly believe we would benefit with more of a socialist democracy. This way those who go without can still get, in this day, the service they need to live. I.E. health care.

The problems with our government is not its actual construction or purpose, but those in it not serving the people. They serve themselves or someone else agenda. Obviously this a huge generalization.

What needs to happen is government should be more open to who is allowed to participate. Get rid of the need for people in high government roles to have some form of wealth or access to it. Get rid of the need of gender, sex, and sexual orientation requirements. Get rid of the able-ism only perspective. And a huge aspect is ending race requirements. Just because our president is half black does not mean racism no longer exists. If anything out president represents privilege, because he is half white.

Once all types of perspectives are include in government by ending patriarchy, and insuring that these people want to help out their fellow American "citizens" then can we know if our construction of government truly works or fails. And if it fails, the government, then we can fix it from that point. But since a typical person controls government no one can know if it works or not.

Because in present stance government effects both our society and economy poorly. Our society is poor in many different levels, for example, the education system fails. Why is it that poor neighborhoods, that are usually filled with minorities, have poor school systems? I believe that good education could change this country for the better, why is it that a large part of our population does not have it. As far as economy because we allow these big companies i.e Walmart, Target ect to prosper the way that they do, they make it difficult for smaller companies to start. This is because we are a capitalist nation in thought because of a number of reason that really don't apply at this moment. All of these issues and more are because of what I previously mentioned above.

btw this thread is male dominated, two females?

[matttherobot]

I completely agree with you on the issues of direct democracy. Republican (not the political party) forms of government help insulate and sometimes counter the will of the people in a situation where mob rule might arise.

You mention that the government can provide people with healthcare. Why can't private systems provide health care? You actually later mention our education system fails our students, so why would you want to place health care in the hands of the same people?

Also, on your points about who the government is serving, don't you think this is a natural extension of human behavior? It seems to me that ever expecting politicians to truly do what they think is best for the country, and not for their own careers, is foolish. Personally, thats why I favor a smaller government. Why give more power and controls to people who have so consistently proven that they can't handle it?

You make some interesting points on requirements to serve in public office. While there is certainly no official requirements, there definitely is a bias towards people of certain socioeconomic backgrounds. However, I do have to disagree with you on this being a political issue. Our leaders are ultimately democratically elected, and if people genuinely did not want their politicians to be white, male, and well-to-do, we would see that. And we are seeing some of that. Generalizing all of the government as white and male seems silly to me. We are seeing more minorities and gender differences than ever, and I am sure we will see this trend continue forward. I also must disagree with you that electing more multicultural politicians will bring about people who truly want to help. The incentives of public office aren't going to effect a white person different from a black or hispanic person, or effect a male different from a female.

On schools. You say that poor neighborhoods have poor school systems. And I agree, but I would also go further, and say that all public school systems are poor. What we should be doing getting rid of public schools, and allowing people to choose where they want to send their kids to school. Charter schools are able to go into poor neighborhoods and produce high educational standards, competing with private schools in wealthier neighborhoods. The issue isn't with the poor not being able to afford a good education, but with public schools having a government monopoly on education. Public schools simply lack the proper incentives to educate children. If a public school isn't performing well, its because they aren't getting enough funding, or because they are in a bad neighborhood. There is no accountability in the system (at least partially to do with the prevalence of teacher's unions). If a charter or private school isn't performing well, it goes out of business, or it improves itself.

Walmart and Target are replacing small businesses because the market favors that. People would rather pay low prices than....not. And your point about small businesses not being able to start because of Walmart and Target is just wrong. In fact I would argue that because Walmart, we will see more small businesses. If I as an entrepreneur or small business man can shop at Walmart to save money, I can than invest that money or use it as capital to start a small business in other areas. If we didn't have Walmart, prices would be much higher, and I would never amass the funds necessary to start a small business.

Male dominated? I think we have had 6 male posters and 2 female. I would hardly call that dominated. Hopefully we well get more people on this thread, regardless of sex.