Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I became interested in this after another debate where I disagreed over what the ideal "purpose" of governments is. I think if we had a good communication on this, it could help us all understand where each other are coming from more clearly; often I think disagreements of whether a governments actions are good stem from a deeper disagreement on this issue.

For me, personally, I think the job of a government is to create the highest possible standard of living for it's citizens. A constitution's purpose is to decide the limits on what actions can be employed towards this goal, i.e. which freedoms can be limited, and which are inviolable.

I would agree with that assessment.

Smaller Government FTW.

Originally posted by WanderingDroid
Smaller Government FTW.
What do you see as the purpose? (I assume it's not "to be small"

Well, the purpose is very obvious...you establish a social contract between yourself and the community. However, I don't think you would like the community telling how to run your business, buy a home, get a car, or spend your money. As a citizen you will abide but not be dictate...that's as simple as I can put it.

Originally posted by WanderingDroid
Well, the purpose is very obvious...you establish a social contract between yourself and the community. However, I don't think you would like the community telling how to run your business, buy a home, get a car, or spend your money. As a citizen you will abide but not be dictate...that's as simple as I can put it.
But, what do we contract w/ the community for, like, for what purpose does the contract exist?

Protection and administration.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I became interested in this after another debate where I disagreed over what the ideal "purpose" of governments is. I think if we had a good communication on this, it could help us all understand where each other are coming from more clearly; often I think disagreements of whether a governments actions are good stem from a deeper disagreement on this issue.

For me, personally, I think the job of a government is to create the highest possible standard of living for it's citizens. A constitution's purpose is to decide the limits on what actions can be employed towards this goal, i.e. which freedoms can be limited, and which are inviolable.

I agree with that mostly. I guess I see freedom and security as a part of standard of living. The question just is how do you weigh these things.

The purpose of Government is social control and, as was stated, administration.

The prevention of anarchy

Exploitation of the strong.

I think you have to differentiate between what the purpose of government should be and what it is.

Because lets face it, the goverments of today are lying, corrupt bunch of rip of artists with the gift of the gab.

Originally posted by Bicnarok
I think you have to differentiate between what the purpose of government should be and what it is.

Good point.


However, the thread is actually asking quite specifically what the purpose of the government is to you.

It is not asking what the purpose of your existing government is.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Exploitation of the strong.

Then why do the "strong" (by that I assume you mean the rich) control the government in the US? The "strong" are hardly exploited here.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
Then why do the "strong" (by that I assume you mean the rich) control the government in the US? The "strong" are hardly exploited here.

He's doing his objectivist satire. It's been a while.

Originally posted by WanderingDroid
Smaller Government FTW.

I argee and less power as well.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
I argee and less power as well.

I agree the government could be somewhat smaller. It has entire departments and numerous agencies that could and should be eliminated, or at least downsized.

But what do you mean by less power? And who gets said power? Elaborate please.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
The prevention of anarchy

glares

Originally posted by King Kandy
I became interested in this after another debate where I disagreed over what the ideal "purpose" of governments is. I think if we had a good communication on this, it could help us all understand where each other are coming from more clearly; often I think disagreements of whether a governments actions are good stem from a deeper disagreement on this issue.

For me, personally, I think the job of a government is to create the highest possible standard of living for it's citizens. A constitution's purpose is to decide the limits on what actions can be employed towards this goal, i.e. which freedoms can be limited, and which are inviolable.

It's a great question; one that has been debated for thousands of years. Here in America we like to pretend we knew what it meant, despite the use of terms like more-perfect in the founding documents we like to wave in front of others to make ourselves feel superior and shame them all at the same time.

What ever definition is agreed upon by the majority in this thread, it does not have to mean that 1% deserves the finite resources and wealth of the other 99%. This is not to say that all people have to be equal in their desperation or oppulance; but that no one merrits desperation because of accident of birth or at the expense of theorhetical intellect and/or labor.

Originally posted by skekUng
It's a great question; one that has been debated for thousands of years. Here in America we like to pretend we knew what it meant, despite the use of terms like more-perfect in the founding documents we like to wave in front of others to make ourselves feel superior and shame them all at the same time.

What ever definition is agreed upon by the majority in this thread, it does not have to mean that 1% deserves the finite resources and wealth of the other 99%. This is not to say that all people have to be equal in their desperation or oppulance; but that no one merrits desperation because of accident of birth or at the expense of theorhetical intellect and/or labor.

I do think it can mean the latter to some people (or at least be a result of their government), why would you exclude that definition categorically?

I am glad that you argee that it should be smaller and I mean by less power is that the Goverment pretty much rans everything and knows everything about us.I don't think they should be in control over everything that we do and stuff like that.

Those would be the 1%.

I dismiss it as a concept because that model benefits the very great minority at the expense of the vast majority; people confuse the reality of that with the concept of upward mobility and freedoms.

Originally posted by skekUng
Those would be the 1%.

I dismiss it as a concept because that model benefits the very great minority at the expense of the vast majority; people confuse the reality of that with the concept of upward mobility and freedoms.

And perhaps those that think they can become part of the 1%.

Though honestly I don't really care how the wealth is distributed as long as people are free and live well. Hypothetically if all of the 99% could live like the 1% live now but the wealth still would be distributed the same way I don't think anyone can much complain.

Originally posted by Bardock42
And perhaps those that think they can become part of the 1%.

Originally posted by skekUng
people confuse the reality of that with the concept of upward mobility.


Originally posted by Bardock42
Though honestly I don't really care how the wealth is distributed as long as people are free and live well. Hypothetically if all of the 99% could live like the 1% live now but the wealth still would be distributed the same way I don't think anyone can much complain.

Then the wealth would be worthless. But I agree entirely. In the US, we need a second bill of rights -one that considers the modern era and realizes that the constitution was meant to be changed with the times and not some monolith in time that ends up holding us back.

Originally posted by skekUng
Then the wealth would be worthless. But I agree entirely. In the US, we need a second bill of rights -one that considers the modern era and realizes that the constitution was meant to be changed with the times and not some monolith in time that ends up holding us back.

What would your "modern bill of rights" consist of? What would you add to the original and what would you take away?

Originally posted by skekUng
Then the wealth would be worthless. But I agree entirely. In the US, we need a second bill of rights -one that considers the modern era and realizes that the constitution was meant to be changed with the times and not some monolith in time that ends up holding us back.

That would be third bill of rights.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bill_of_Rights

Although if you listen to people's rhetoric these days most of those rights are destroying America/the world.

I totally agree. If the founding fathers had intended the constitution to be perfect for all time, they would not have included an amendment process. they understood that no one can predict the future, and things that work in one century may not in another.

I would agree with FDR's second bill; many countries already have such provisions. The US however has failed to keep up.