Can somebody definitively answer this question?
What, exactly, IS the roll of Government in society? Is it there to control the populace, to guide, make decisions for, and protect its citizenry, to facilitate the communication between large and diverse bodies (peoples from different nations)?
Some, all, or none of these correct?
Oh good lord.
[Grammar Nazi]First, the word is “role”. Roll is something you eat or whata ball does when it runs along the ground. [/Grammar Nazi]
Second, this Belongs in great Debates. Mods, please move it post haste, because this could get ugly.
Third, this is not a question that can be definitively answered.
To Americans, the answer would probably be: to preserve law and order, to provide for a civil society, and enact such laws as are required for the common wealth, prosperity, and happiness of its citizens, and to provide for a common defense. But that would apply only to the Federal government,. State and local governments would be somewhat different.
To some Europeans, the government’s purpose is: To provide for all citizens, protect the local culture from Auslander influences, to achieve world power status, and to control the people. To many other Euro-leute, it would hew closer to the American view.
To many third-world states, the role of government is: to protect the ruling class, make an orderly and peaceful society, or even just to enrich the guys at the top (see North Korea) or to keep power for the guys at the top (see Cuba). In a few others, there are other goals, such as forcing society to bind ityself tightly to a limiting religious viewpoint (Iran).
Well, the alleged purposes of the government of the United States is “…to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity…”. I imagine that the answer will vary depending on the form of government, the history of the area under governance, etc.
Just to reiterate, the differences between Democrats, Republicans, Librtarians, Socialists, etc., is not just disagreement on specific policy issues. Their respective positions on those issues are based on their fundamentally different notions of the proper role of government.
A government can take on many roles. The question of “Which roles are best?” has been debated for thousands of years. It’s a philosophical question more than anything else.
[IMHO]
In my opinion, the fundamental role of government is to protect the inalienable rights of individuals. In other words, the government can be thought of as a bodyguard you hired to beat the crap out of anyone who tries to take away your rights.
[/IMHO]
Well, Crafter_Man, I’d argue that a “right” is really a relationship between a citizen and the government, so that a right has no meaning outside of the government existing. Therefore, the notion that people have rights and then a government is created to protect those rights is backwards. In my view, the government is created and then people develop the concept of rights to order their relationship with that government.
But the reason I replied is to say pretty much what CurtC said: defining the proper role of government takes place every four years on the national executive level and much more often on other national levels and the state and local level.
How does that work when you extend various rights protections to visitors, refugees and jurisdictions outside of the government’s control. How does a non-citizen benefit from rights that you say can not be extended to them? Citizens obviously feel that the rights they enjoy should extend to the non-citizen classes. If those people deserve recognition of these rights it must be because the citizens feel they possess them too and so they become inherent. If inherent rights are a fiction, it’s a fiction we seem content to abide by.
General Questions is for questions with factual answers. Great Debates is our forum for debates.
Off to Great Debates.
DrMatrix - GQ Moderator
So if I were on a deserted island, I would not have freedom of speech? Or freedom of religion? Or the freedom to protect myself from harm?
The Native Americans did not have rights?
The Native Americans didn’t have governments? O_o
No. All people, as human beings, have rights, regardless of place or time. A slave has the same rights I have, except that his “master” is violating those rights, and the government is defaulting in the protection of his rights. If he didn’t have those rights to begin with, there would be nothing wrong with slavery.
According to your view, the slave has a different “relationship” with the government than the master has. Why should he complain, since he doesn’t have any rights anyway? And if that slave cries out, “You don’t have the right to treat me this way,” the master simply shrugs and says, “Sure I do.”
U.S. citizens are brought up to believe (and many of them DO believe - I can’t speak for other countires) that people have “inalienable” rights that no other person and no government can arbitrarily deprive them of. This was articulated in the Declaration of Independence (“life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”) The primary role of government is to help the individual exercise those rights.
Having said that, we must acknowledge that what exactly those rights are, how they may be exercised and/or curtailed and whether the government should take an active or passive role in helping people “exercise” their rights is the stuff Great Debates (not to mention civil wars) are made of.
That certainly is a great debate. It seems to me that, basically, this is the fundamental question of political philosophy (followed closely by how best to fill that role). The short answer would be to grab a book and start reading, and don’t stop until you’ve digested them all. I’m sure plenty of Dopers could recommend their favorite political philosophers (I’ll throw Locke and Mill out there).
Really, as has already been stated the answer will depend on what level of government and what state (meaning any political body - city, state/province, nation, etc.) you are talking about. Also, the answer will vary with time in any given location. You will also see, to varying degrees, different ideas on the role of government among different factions of any state at any time.
This all really comes to the conclusion that the question is unanswerable in general terms. At best you can determine what you feel, at one particular moment, is the proper role of government for your location at your particular point in history.
This is backward from the “self-evident” American truths that we all have “inalienable rights” that are as elemental to being human. To secure these rights, governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
The American answer is in here:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Sorry about spelling, I’m an American who’s lived in Germany for the last 12 years… Spellings have become blurred…
Actually the “Auslander” is much more protected than the Citizen. I see it every day, if you want to get away with something in Germany, either be dark skinned or speak with a slavic accent and then cry
Point taken with the diversity of the role of Gov’t throughout the welt, but I really wanted to focus this (should have been a question, ended as little debated debate) to centralize on “Civilized” nations with open elections of a democratic nature.
This post was in reaction the War on Porn (AG AssKroft).
Well, sure, that’s the approved answer. But do you really think that is the consensus of all Americans of differing political stripes? For example, I find it hard to swallow that a country that allows abortion can say that the role of government is to secure the unalieniable right to life.
Its role is to guarantee these.
Oh course why those and not Hamurabi’s code? I mean besides the fact I don’t own any oxen.
Yeah I know, that’s another deabte.
I don’t know about all Americans.
But to deny these principles is to abandon the idea of America the Free. It actually is un-American.
The core idea is that the government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. The governed’s right to deny consent is an inalienable right. WHile the right may be thwarted and violated, it is still the governed’s right. That’s the core of what America means. It’s a serious mistake to abandon that.
Maybe I’m just old fashioned and trying to conserve old fashioned ideas.
I still believe in the fundamental American principle that government’s just powers are derived from the consent of the governed.
Without this essential principle, there is no “America land of the free.”
The loss of America the Free is among the worst things and would be a grave and terrible loss not only to all Americans living, dead and unborn, but to humanity as a whole.
Failure to honor the sovereignty of the electorate is repugnant to free men. It is something that free men cannot tolerate. When and where this failure occurs, free men alter or abolish such a government, and to institute new government.