What should a good government be?

[Paul Victorey]

Just a post to generate some thinking on all our parts.

My theory on a good government:

A good government is one which imposes the minimum number of restrictions on personal freedom. Rights are not granted by government, but by our humanity, and rights should not be taken away.

Government SHOULD:

1) Maintain laws as are necessary to prevent a person or persons from impinging upon another's basic rights. This means killing, theft, racial discrimination, slavery, etc. are not allowed. Also, drugs whose use makes the user a significant danger to others would be banned; the people around that person have a right to safety.

2) Provide equal legal protection to all citizens, and ensure trials are as fair as possible.

3) Provide basic infrastructure, like roads, currency, etc.

4) Provide a means of support for those who are unable to help themselves, or need emergency aid that they cannot pay for (like in medical emergencies). Handouts should be ONLY as much as is needed, and only when it is imperitive. Also, aid in non-cash form is preferred, to ensure that the person uses the aid as it is meant. An example is providing a single mother with free child care (one of the biggest reasons single mothers can't make it is the expense of child care) so they can work a job to support themselves and their children.

5) Provide a means of defense against foreign and domestic problems.

6) Set standards to ensure worker safety, and set a minimum wage to ensure people can live on their income.

Government SHOULD NOT:

1) Legislate morality. People have the right to choose immorality, and choosing to be moral only because someone is forcing you to cheapens the whole idea of morality.

2) Impinge upon the privacy or liberties of its citizens. "Those who would trade a vital liberty for a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety". People have the right to do what they want with their lives; people are even free to flush their lives down the toilet if they so choose.

3) Give handouts to those who can make it on their own but choose not to. Single people without dependants, and without mental or physical handicaps should never get aid (excepting medical attention if they require it) -- a single person, especially when the economy is strong as it has been, can make it. It might not be fun, they may not have luxuries, but they can survive.

4) Put the individual at the mercy of the mob. People have the right to hold even unpopular opinions. So long as they are not impinging on another person's liberties, people should be free to do any action, even ones that the rest of society frowns upon, without fear that their liberties will be impinged upon. If "the greater good" is ever put as the all-important, then we become a society of slaves to society.

I'm sure there are other things to fall into both categories that I'm missing in this, but this is my view on government.

[StuartW]

Paul - the problem with drawing up lists of what is a good or bad government is that it is very subjective.
To take just one of your points - people should be allowed personal liberty. If a country is at war - many personal freedoms are curtailed, and at this point in time this would be considered 'good government'. In a government run by a Dictator, if the people were allowed to congregate at sporting events - the people would consider this good government, even if the rest of their personal liberties were curtailed.It all depends on where and when you are.
I understand that many people in the USA hated the outgoing Democrat goverment - and yet from where I am standing,they appeared to have been a good government.

A simple definition of a good government is one that is not noticed by its people.

[Gintaras]

Just wondering:

People, before becoming adults need parents to guide them.
When they become adults- [most of them]they need goverment to guide them.

my wording/phrasing might be bad, but some, I hope will understand my wondering.

[Paul Victorey]

I do understand what you're saying, although I disagree. Government should not guide people. People should guide themselves, no matter where they end up.

People should be free to make terrible mistakes, to do stupid things, and they should suffer the consequences. There has to come a point where the training wheels come off, and you ride or fall based on your own actions.

[Gintaras]

Originally posted by Paul Victorey . There has to come a point where the training wheels come off, and you ride or fall based on your own actions.

I agree on this. But why majority are unable to do that?

[Paul Victorey]

I think a lot of times, people fail because they expect other people to help them along for all their life. If they aren't doing well, they blame everyone besides themselves. "It was my parents", "it was those damn politicians", "it was my boss' fault", etc. People, to some extent, want freedom, but conversely also feel they are "entitled" to safety nets to ensure they'll never have problems. They're afraid to truly be free.

Freedom is a kind of power, and with any power comes RESPONSIBILITY. Ultimately, how well you do, or how badly, is YOUR fault. If you succeed, you succeed because of your own intelligence, skill, or luck (which is rare but does happen). If you fail in life, it is your own fault. People refuse to be held accountable for their actions, and thus they try to give away their freedoms for the security of slavery to the government. And, if you give up your freedoms, you ARE a slave, regardless of how nice that life may seem.

I think the real problem with the current American society is that people don't realize just how important their liberties are. Some people want to give all their power away to the government and let Uncle Sam run their lives, not realizing the true extent of the ramifications of their actions. That's the scary thing about a lot of these ideas, that's the scary thing about the communist ideology in general, is that it seems to provide many benefits to the people. People only see the benefits and not the hell they'd create when they build their "utopia".

People are starting to clamor about wanting censorship, they want to protect themselves and their families from "evil" influences, and slowly the right to free speech fades. People want more police monitoring, to make them feel safer, and slowly the right to privacy fades. People want the government to put religion in schools to help their children, and slowly the right to free religion fades. People are trading their rights away a little at a time, so slowly that nobody will notice until it's too late to stop it.

"They that can give up an essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" -- Ben Franklin

[StuartW]

Originally posted by Paul Victorey People are trading their rights away a little at a time, so slowly that nobody will notice until it's too late to stop it.

I as undertand it, you Americans should value above all else your basic rights and freedom.Now here is a conundrum. What about the freedom of those people who WANT to give away their rights 'a little at a time'. If you stop them,you are taking away their basic right to choose - soooo I can only conclude that there is no such thing as total freedom in any society.
A (very) simple example. People are driving too fast down a residential street, so a speed limit is imposed to protect the residents.Motorists have lost the 'right' to drive at their usual speeds, but would probably agree on the loss of this freedom.
I know,and agree, with your statement that with rights comes responsibilities - but in the real world people just don't act that way, especially if the responsible course conflicts with their own needs.

[Paul Victorey]

If people want to give their rights away, they can move somewhere else and do it Or give their rights to someone else, just don't give MY rights to someone else, too!

Sometimes, freedoms are given up for the sake of an ordered society, and for the safety of the people. For example, the freedom to kill another is obviously trampling on the other person's right to live, and any society that doesn't want to destory itself will outlaw killing.

[troysvihl]

>>What should a good government be?<<


The government that governs least, governs best. So I say the best government, is no government.

I believe that everything can be provided by the private sector more efficiently, including defense and police services. Here's an article on the issue if any of you are interested:

http://www.mises.org/journals/scholar/Hoppe%2Epdf

[Carl Price]

Originally posted by troysvihl >>What should a good government be?<< The government that governs least, governs best. So I say the best government, is no government. I believe that everything can be provided by the private sector more efficiently, including defense and police services. Here's an article on the issue if any of you are interested: http://www.mises.org/journals/scholar/Hoppe%2Epdf

I think you have missed the point entirely. Without any government at all there would be no laws at all because the right to make laws is included in the right to govern. No law, no police force! No police force, fittest takes all until one group prevails. That group makes it's own rules (laws) and provides police enforcement of those rules. Therefore there can never be "no government".

[troysvihl]

i don't agree. read that link, the author's reasoning is the same as mine.

[Paul Victorey]

I tend to agree with Hobbes' philosophy.

Firstly, not all people are alike. Some, like me, are willing to make many difficult sacrifices for a long-term goal. However, I can name a dozen people offhand who won't do this, and in fact WILL conduct themselves in a way that, although it increases their happiness at the moment, will destroy their futures, sometimes irreparably. Generally, you try to get the better people, the visionaries, the thinkers, into places of power. Not that it always works, but that's the hope anyhow.

Add to the mix that I know a good many people who live for the single sole reason that it is illegal to kill them, and the admitted many benefits of their deaths are outweighed by the consequences of killing them. Those consequences are the only thing that protects them.

Also, I agree that SOME form of government will always exist. If all government ceased today, people would band together for protection, and one group or person would rise to the top of the power scale, and they would rule over the others. In all of recorded history, never has any group of people been without some kind of governing person or body. Even when one government falls, another quickly rises to its place.

Even in animal groups there is a social hierarchy that is, itself, a primitive kind of government, often the hierarchy has an alpha male at the top imposing its will upon the other members of its group. But in every social animal is seen some kind of pecking order. The only living things that DON'T show this tendency are those that are not social; i.e. those that are unaware of or do not care about other things of its species.

From the smallest units of human society to the largest, a power structure is seen. Power structures are sometimes formal, sometimes informal, but always present, at any scale. I go farther than Hobbes; I believe government is not only necessary but also inevitable, and that any society will tend towards some kind of government.

[troysvihl]

>>In all of recorded history, never has any group of people been without some kind of governing person or body.<<

Back in the days when there was a frontier, there were groups of people without some kind of governing body. Many towns had governing bodies, and many did not.

[LawyerRon]

Paul,

Quote:

"Add to the mix that I know a good many people who live for the single sole reason that it is illegal to kill them, and the admitted many benefits of their deaths are outweighed by the consequences of killing them. Those consequences are the only thing that protects them."



Please stop referring to Lawyers in this manner.

[Paul Victorey]

Originally posted by troysvihl >>In all of recorded history, never has any group of people been without some kind of governing person or body.<< Back in the days when there was a frontier, there were groups of people without some kind of governing body. Many towns had governing bodies, and many did not.

There was no official government, but there were always those who would impose their wills upon the people, oftentimes outlaws. In essence they were a kind of monarchy/dictatorship, although they had no formal recognition as a government.

There was still a social order, and people on top, and people on the bottom.

In fact the wild west is a good example of how an official, recognized government helps create stability and safety, and the lack thereof creates disorder and danger.

[troysvihl]

Social order is not the same as government. Government is a monopoly on force while social order are more akin to market forces.

Modern day crime rates are higher than crime rates in the wild west, so I don't agree that the wild west is a good example of how a lack of government creates disorder.

I don't know how anyone can claim that official, recognized governments create stability and safety in view of the record of governments to date. Statistically, if you were a human that died during the 20th century, your death was much more likely to be due to your government murdering you than any other means of death, including natural causes. You call that stability and safety?

[Edited by troysvihl on 01-10-2001 at 04:51 AM]

[glc]

Ron:

I was not aware that Lawyers were social animals.........

[LawyerRon]

George,
Now you know.

[Xayd]

Kinda late, but here's my plan...

Any law/regulation passed today is absolutely, constitutionally, time limited to five years, after which time they must be re-approved by congress. Tax increases should be the same, only ratified annually, not every five years. I.E. if income tax rates aren't approved this year, they get no income taxes next year.

Imagine how many problems that would solve?

So, if one jackass president or group of congressmen manages to squeeze through a proposal to create a whole sloo of new regulations and expenses, it'll only last a couple of years. All acts involving the creation of federal agencies would fall under the same umbrella.

The kicker? Re-Approval should be weighted like a constitutional amendment, 2/3 for all re-approvals of existing laws.

Problem with the current US government is it has found ways to bend the original system, to feed itself. It needs a strict set of rules again, and not only that, but a strict set of rules that are slanted AGAINST it. The US government is great with new ideas, but terrible with execution. This would allow the idea, and punish terrible execution.

Xayd


[Edited by Xayd on 01-20-2001 at 12:42 AM]

[kraken]

Xayd
If you were to take all existing laws for approval then there would be no time for nothing else.

Paul

You wish to live in a world where YOU are granted absolute freedom where others are subjected to constraints.

Even in this world of regulated life there exist the possibility of rising from the crowds and showing yourself to be truly great. It is not something that is given to you as a right, it is something to be earnt.

I have also thought that if we were to get rid of all the ills of the word it would be a better place. Who defines the ills and do you understand enough to make those kinds of judgements. I Don't. (not yet anyway)

Where would the people who are prepared togive their rights away move to. They have as much right to censorship as you have to none. If you don't like it you move to where you think your freedoms are best served.

The alpha male (female) exists and if you are not the Alpha you may well resent that fact. The Alpha is the alpha because they have proved their worth by whichever means that is dictated by the times. If you want to be alpha then you must prove yourself, not just spout words of disapproval.

People should be free to make their own mistakes unless those mistakes impinge on others.

A simple truth is that the majority of the people want some form of control upon their lives, if this were not so then there would be no government and no laws.

Paul you are ranting against forces that you cannot control, and you never will. Go with the flow and find where you belong, or be in a position to change that which you see to be wrong.

[Xayd]

Exactly my point kraken, they less they have time for the better.

Did ya know that you can't legally paint a cow purple on Thursday in California?

/me runs off looking for purple paint...


But seriously, competence should be required to vote, that's the kicker. People should be given American history and literacy exams (high school level literacy, not basic literacy), before they're allowed to vote. More stringent testing should be required for governmental positions of authority.

Ignorance in the public is the sole reason for every ridiculous law and agency that we have. If a person can't figure out that a spotted owl is a hybrid that can't breed, and therefore has no rightful reason to be a protected species, then that person has no place in policy making at EPA, for example.


Xayd

[Edited by Xayd on 01-25-2001 at 06:49 AM]

[kraken]

Xayd

While I can sympathise with your point of view, I cannot accept it. Define that which is right, live by it, then fight for it.

When you define that which you have no understanding of, then you are guilty of a form of racism that is not yet defined by common features. (I don't like the way that person thinks).

Every person, whether they are deemed to be a dickhead or not, has the right to their own thoughts.

Be beyond the bull****, again I will quote a book of philosophy when I say, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."