Backin' up to the big picture
My buddy Charles suggested I back up a bit from specific issues and outline my views on government in general. So here we go.
At its root, government should serve as a framework for a nation by:
- Imposing and enforcing laws that maintain order.
- Lubricating the flow of daily life (commerce, health care, etc.), wherever possible, and jump-starting opportunities where it can (read: FDR's Depression-era efforts, NASA's space pioneering)
- Defending the state from those who might seek to destroy it.
- Giving extra opportunities to its less fortunate citizens.
- Being the voice of the masses, on any issues that require the power of the collective (giving foreign aid, bailing out industries, creating legislation).
- In all other respects, giving its citizens the freedom to do as they please.
The government (in our case, a representative democracy) should get its limited power from:
- The voice of the collective, heard in the November elections.
- The appropriation of necessary funds each year from each citizen.
In my opinon, government should not:
- Define "morality" for its citizens.
- Expend extra effort to protect its weakest, most accident-prone citizens.
- Prop up failing industries and organizations indefinitely (read: airlines, Amtrak).
- Attempt to maintain other regions of the world.
Like? Have suggestions? Let me know.
Required reading for me on this topic: The Federalist Papers and Plato's Republic. Any other suggestions are more than welcome--but will have to be read after my next Rushdie fix.
posted by Sameer | 10:33 PM
2 Comments:
Not sure how you feel about this, but I would mention that while representing the masses (majority), the government must also carve out protections for the minority so that they may exercise their rights guaranteed by the Constitution without fear of reproach from the government or the majority.
As to maintaining other areas in the world, is your view consistent with this country's ability to defend itself from those who would seek to destroy it? I believe it is, but I would like some elaboration on the subject.
I've promised to comment on this for a coupla weeks - sorry it took me so long. I'm not looking for what's not there, more just trying to analyze the whole of what you have written. Some of this is just needing further delineation, especially where some of your ideas collide. That said, here goes:
1) Maintaining order and citizens' freedoms are directly opposed goals. Both should be priorities, but defining which one is more important is critical. The same paradox exists between freedom and "luibricating the flow of daily life," since every lubrication would be at the taxpayers' expense and in place of supporting other efforts.
2) You mention opportunities for less-fortunate citizens - what are the standards that we're helping citizens to achieve?
3) What situations require the power of the collective? This isn't a given at all.
4) The machinery of government shouldn't define morality, but almost every policy/law has a moral effect if not a source. For example, is murder illegal? Self-defense? Even helping other citizens is a moral act. At the very least, it would seem that government would express the morality of its citizenry.
5) Why should we prop up industries and organizations at all? If so, how do we define the cutoff to prevent "indefinitely?"
6) Mike said this much more eloquently replying to your next post, but if conditions elsewhere affect our security, how can we maintain that security without being involved in other regions?
Perhaps overall the question should start off at, what do people want out of a social contract? What would they want guaranteed for themselves given they'd have to help provide it to everyone else? What standards need to be met to participate in this contract? Ignore groups - they're just collections of people. But that's just my opinion.
Post a Comment
<< Home