Well, I don't have much time, so I'll be brief:

What role (if any) do you think government should play in our lives? Should we live in a totalitarian/nanny state that runs our lives for us, should government play a large role in our lives with some freedoms, should government be minimalist, or should we live in total anarchy?

Please be prepared to defend your views properly, as this is quite a contentious subject.

Me, here's my view:

I think that government has only a few key roles to play. It should create legislation that prevents us from harming others, whilst allowing us maximum freedoms. It should regulate the economy so that monopolies do not form, and so that businesses do not infringe upon our freedoms or upon the workings of the free market.
I believe that by staying in our countries after the age of 18 we enter into an unwritten social contract - we agree to keep the laws and pay taxes, and government protects us from those who would do us harm and provides a working justice system. It also regulates the economy and subsidises and taxes so-called "merit" and "demerit" goods - like education and healthcare, and harmful drugs respectively. Perhaps this contract should be formalised to make it more obvious/acceptable.
Government should generally seek the greatest happiness for the greatest number.

What are your thoughts?

One question here, what if the person does not want to enter into this social contract? Does he leave or what happens to him? I see this issue today, seems like a problem to resolve, do you have any thoughts on this?

Figures I'm the first one to post here. I already displayed most of my views in the other thread, but I'm cooling off from the heavy philosophy at the moment as real life is getting a bit too stressful right now. I'll check in occasionally but don't expect a heavy debate.

My thoughts on this is that when since do humans know what they want?
Even if we made the goverment better another problem would come up.
Humans have a problem with perfection.

Who said anythign about perfection? The bigger problem is simple management.

I once wrote a short story that asically outlined what I believe an ideal government should be. I decided to be a bit conservative and outline a constitutional minarchy set in the near future. I'll describe the government and you can take it as you will.

The story takes place in New York Megacity, an ultra-urbanized city-state approximately the size of Nwe Yor City and the surrounding metropolitan area. The idea is that an area that small (in relation to a massive country) would be easier to manage.The megacity is devided into districts and the districts are devided into sections. The sections are headed by officials and they regulate road maintainence and other upkeepings. The districts are headed by supervisors and handle police and courts. The federal level is made up of district superindendents and an executive chairperson. The federal government handles prisons and VERY MILD regulations on PRIVATE schools and PRIVATE businesses. The federal government's main concern is upholding the rights of citizens and rejecting any legislation that would infringe upon the basic rights of life, personal livelihood, speech, bodily ownership, privacy and property. Taxes are light and are on sales and various services. The key word is minarchy, as in minimal government. That's what government should be to me.

Government should play a large role in our lives, but still allowing freedoms. We need goverment to keep things in check, like laws and budgets. But the goverment shouldn't try to interfere with our lives, or start a tyranny.

It usally does eventually.

I think that more people should take responsibility for the government and what is going on around them. So many people who complain about the government can't even be bothered to get out there and vote, which is really the least you can do. People also need to educate themselves about candidates' positions before they vote, rather than just voting for whoever seems like a nicer guy. What disgusts me most about politics these days is that people either seem to be completely ignorant about the subject, or they just don't care. How is democracy supposed to function if people don't educate themselves and participate?

I don't think that any government in the world today is doing a really great job, but I doubt I could do any better so unless I have a solution I try not to whine too much about it. I do hate how the American government works these days, but since I'm not even American I won't go into it.

I'm somewhat left of centre (though not radically left-wing by any standards) and I do believe that the government should stay out of our lives as much as possible. I also believe that a liberal society implies that people are smart enough to act responsibly, and that isn't always the case. I don't think that means that society should be more rigid, but people should be more educated and more responsible. Don't know if that's ever going to happen... sure, most educations systems (particularly in Singapore) need a complete overhaul, but I don't know if even that will do it.

I'm much too ignorant to even be discussing this. I know very little about politics and my views are really just based on my observations of everything that the governments I've been exposed to are doing wrong. I don't know what I'm talking about.

I think that, while personal freedoms are important and should be protected, a government needs to be able to make decisions without recourse to the public, in the manner of the elective dictatorship we have in the United Kingdom.

Never mind all those pipe dreams - how about a government that simply keeps all the promises it makes at election time? Let's face it, it's the only reason we vote for them in the first place, and yet every single time we're let down, as one by one these promises go (largely) unfulfilled.

Oh, and perhaps we could have a government we can trust, rather than the usual stream of sleazy, underhanded backbiters that we normally get. On a side issue, I loved the House of Cards (which is essentially the story of how a whip ends up as PM, and all the devious methods he uses to get there), but I think Francis Urquhart is perhaps a good deal less machiavellian than the real life ministers...

Oh, for a government that tells the truth and looks after the needs of it's populace... could it, would it ever happen?

Well, one assumes that said person would either become an outlaw or would have to leave. Neither sounds very appealing (or morally justifiable) to me, but it's not like this social contract is all that terrible. If you really have a problem with the government, you should be able to work democratically from the inside to change the system. Hell, that's what Hitler did, and it sure worked for him. Uninspiring though that may sound, it does prove that you can acheive big results by working within the system.



How about an electorate and a media with enough sense to see what is feasible and likely, and with enough educated cynicism to decide who is trustworthy? Of course, you could institute some system that forces parties to stick to their election promises within one year of election for a period of six months. How practical that is I don't know.
And I remind you, Leopold, of the very admirable northern European governments - the Scandinavians, the Dutch, the Swiss and (irregularly) the Germans, who have managed to produce very reliable politicians, transparent systems and very democratic and fair societies. It's not impossible, and it sure helps if we don't whore ourselves to big business, religion and other interest groups.

I disagree here. Machiavelli wasn't right on this count - many countries with stable economies and socially-minded, sensible governments have experienced many centuries of peace, political stability, lack of corruption, social progress and HAPPY HAPPY LOVE LOVE. Ahem.

And here we get into the vicious circle. Until we have a cynical and educated electorate, there will be insufficient pressure on the government to reform the education system to produce educated cynicism in the proportion necessary to vote in a government capabale of making such a system.

*head spins around*

argh.

sounds kinda like Judge Dredd....would it be called Mega-City 1?

aaanyway, goverment is, as with most things in real life, a good idea gone wrong, the fact that they have been around for so long (well not so long in america, but still quite a while) its been allowed to stagnate, everything needs to be stirred up as it were...well thats my thoughts anyway, just to make my original post less spam like

Polo read the book (if you already haven't) "Walden Two" by B.F.Skinner. It has some interetsing musing son positive reinforcement vs. negative punishment which I think could help you with your ideal society. Great book.


That's why I said usually and eventually, a few got it right, for now anyway. Just give them time to collapse.

That's always been my point.

Very nice, smart-ass. I've always thought that high urbanization was a good thing. I came up with the word "megacity" way before I even saw that miserable flick.

IMO there is a call for government. Without a typical form of leadership, chaos will be your leader and the standard laws of the wild will be your ruler. What I would like to see is a government void of corp. influence and control. I would like to see elected officials make choices for the good of the people not their wallets. I would say that 80% of all legislature in the US benefits some form of industry. Until we purge big business from government there will never be a form of pure government that benefits the constituents. This war in Iraq did not make the American people rich, it made Halliburton and other US corporations rich. Greed is the driving force behind US government.