Forum Post: Open Question: What should the role of govt be?
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 23, 2011, 1:35 a.m. EST by quietlike
(194)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
And why?
Public Forum
0 comments 1 day ago by agkaiser
1 comments 4 days ago by agkaiser
0 comments 2 weeks ago by agkaiser
0 comments 1 month ago by agkaiser
11 comments 1 month ago by grapes
0 comments 1 month ago by agkaiser
0 comments 1 month ago by agkaiser
0 comments 1 month ago by agkaiser
0 comments 1 month ago by agkaiser
0 comments 2 months ago by agkaiser
2 comments 2 months ago by agkaiser
0 comments 2 months ago by agkaiser
1 comments 2 months ago by agkaiser
0 comments 2 months ago by agkaiser
1 comments 3 months ago by agkaiser
0 comments 3 months ago by agkaiser
1 comments 4 months ago by agkaiser
0 comments 4 months ago by factsrfun
7 comments 5 months ago by factsrfun
4 comments 5 months ago by factsrfun
7 comments 5 months ago by factsrfun
4 comments 5 months ago by gsw
7 comments 6 months ago by factsrfun
3 comments 6 months ago by agkaiser
Government is needed to govern the people. To decide between right and wrong on behalf of the people. To provide a platform for the people to come together in peace and harmony knowing that the power of might is on the side of the people. It is an organizing mechanism of the people which when of the people, by the people and for the people is the most powerful tool the people will ever know.
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world. . .
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/
Best response
FROM HERE: http://occupywallst.org/forum/direct-democracy-via-the-internet/
Please read the bottom-most post that started this.
"After all, in a Democratic society, the government's job is simply to administrate the process by which the will of the people is formulated into a body of laws and policies, which MOST people agree with, and then protect the peoples' rights to have such a Democracy. The government is sort of the secretary and the bodyguard of the people, not the authority for the people to be forced to follow even when most people disagree with its policies and decisions. In a true Democracy, the PEOPLE are the authority of the government."
"I HEARTILY ACCEPT the motto, — "That government is best which governs least";(1) and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe, — "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient. The objections which have been brought against a standing army, and they are many and weighty, and deserve to prevail, may also at last be brought against a standing government. The standing army is only an arm of the standing government. The government itself, which is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it."
-Henry David Thoreu Civil Disobedience
The government should check the massive power of the unfettered market and ensure that Wall St. be held accountable.
Towards that end, it should regulate markets, oversee compliance, and vigorously prosecute white-collar crime.
If the government is able to do this (getting money out of politics through regulation of lobbying and campaign financing is a precondition for success here), then our economy will serve the interests of all.
I mostly agree, but if govt prosecutes fraud in the market, does it need to regulate it? -federally. Cant regulation be done locally?
As a 'democratic republican' in the most traditional sense -- someone who believes that political liberty means freedom from arbitrary power, where arbitrariness increases to the degree that democratic input decreases -- I am very sympathetic to the idea that freedom in the full sense is only possible at the local level, where government is small enough to hear the voice of ordinary citizens. (By the way, this means that I strongly disagree that "all governments are inherently evil;" I firmly believe that truly democratic government is just.)
However, as a proud member of the reality-based community, I am very wary of proposals to weaken the federal government and hand all that power over to local governments. Local politicians are cheaper to buy, and they can be bought wholesale (the fact that there are more of them doesn't impress me as a reason why corporations would have a harder time buying them). While it requires fewer votes to remove local representatives from office, that doesn't make up for two deeper problems with local government: (a) the opposing candidates can be bought too, perhaps even more cheaply than incumbents, and (b) most people are even more ignorant about their local officials than about their representatives in Washington. For these reasons, I'm very skeptical that local government can be made to run better than Washington. Indeed, just look at how things are run in Albany and you'll see how false it is that local is intrinsically better.
Moreover, even if local government could be rid of corruption, that would get us nowhere with respect to the main problem we're facing and what the Occupy Wall Street movement is all about: multinational corporations have too much power and too little accountability. Just imagine what would happen if your local government, cleaned up so it was now corruption-free, passed some great laws regulating the markets and committed to prosecuting anyone who broke these laws, regardless of title or income. Well, the big corporations might have a hard time carrying on business as usual in your hometown at first. But what would keep them from operating as they do now in the next town over? Your local government's laws wouldn't govern their conduct there, and your local courts wouldn't have jurisdiction over them. What's more is, the next town over might give some of these corporations a break and build them a new mall or a fancy office building and grant them special tax exemptions. Then these corporations will be able to offer their products and services at prices so low that even the good folks in your hometown will be driving over across the town limit so that they can save a couple dollars. Soon enough, your hometown will be losing money and jobs while the corporations will be carrying on unharmed. In the end, your local government may just realize that their great laws were great in theory but economically devastating in practice, and vote to repeal them, reverting to square one.
This is not some fictional myth I made up; it's happening all over America today. Local governments are too small and easy to bypass to really stand up to big corporations in a way that matters. What's more is that they don't have the cash flow to support the institutions necessary for regulating and overseeing multinational corporations. That's why we need a strong federal government. Only the federal government has jurisdiction over the whole country, so its laws cannot be bypassed by anyone interested in the American market. Only the federal government has the cash flow to support the institutions necessary for the regulation and oversight of big corporations, and for the prosecution of corporate crime. The Founding Fathers recognized this; that's why they gave congress the power to regulate commerce. Right now, because of the power of corporate money in Washington, the government is unwilling to use that power. That's why we need stronger anti-lobbying laws and campaign finance reform; then we can finally get government working for the people again.
That said, I do also support reforming local government to the greatest extent possible. We need more citizens involved in the democratic process, informing themselves about the issues and participating in local government to ensure that the land we live in is truly free. This is not opposed to reforming Washington as well, but just part of a larger project of ridding the corruptive influence of corporate money from government at all levels.
If it turns out that we make better progress on this anti-corruption program at the local level than at the federal level, then I'm open to empowering communities to do what the federal government refuses to do itself. But that's a contingency plan to be worked out after we assess this movement's successes and failures in the years to come. Right now we need to push for Plan A: strong laws regulating lobbying and campaign finance so that we can finally have the strong democratic government we need if we're going to hold Wall Street accountable.
Perhaps you would consider our group's proposal of an alternative online direct democracy of government and business at http://getsatisfaction.com/americanselect/topics/on_strategically_weighted_policies_organizational_operating_structures_tactical_investment_procedures-448eo , for this is a small-business-bottom-up approach, not today's big-business-top-down approach, so if agreed, join our group's 20 members committed to that plan at http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/StrategicInternationalSystems/
The government is not except from the laws, the problem is there is no one to prosecute them when they break the laws.
Thats up to the public. But the people are too busy chasing dollars and watching dancing with the stars.
To provide national defence, a fair and affordable justice system.
To protect the rights of the American people
Protect our borders (against invasion and/or illegal immigration). We have all the resources we need. We have all the jobs we need. We have everything we need. Right here in the U.S.A. Unemployment is around 16 Million people right now. There are 16 Million illegal immigrants in the U.S. right now. Now our education and healthcare systems are 'drained'. You do the math.
Do we need govt to run the school, tell people what drugs to take or is that the responsibility of the parent/community, decision of the doctor/patient? Is govt necessary for education to exist or for medicine to be effective?
[Removed]
you're joking right?
[Removed]
No, it's not. But can you step outside of all the 'isms' you have read about and actually imagine that something different and better than any 'ism' is possible? Maybe we are exploring something new right now just by actually discussing the question "what should the role of government be"? What do YOU really think?
[Removed]
I agree. I have yet to see or study a government that has not grown to be a bloated, purely self-serving entity. But just because something has always been so - does not mean it always must be so. The general assembly structure used by the occupiers really looks to be a good start at building a government that can't become the corrupted self serving thing we see all over the world today.
And maybe if we bring a fox to the right hen house, it won;t eat chicken. What you are dealing with is corruption. It is a basic human weakness. Get rid of the weakness, and anything is possible., In the meantime, we need to remain wistfully cynical.