The Purpose of Governments?

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.

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.

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?