The proper role and scope of government

[DanaC]

Interesting. I'd say i pretty much agree with that list. There's one more I'd add though: communication, power and transport infrastructures.

The UK used to have nationally owned utilities, communication, and transport infrastructure: gas, electric, water, telephone, railways. It baffles me that we have privatised these things. Setting aside the fairness/unfairness of limiting access to vital services, what if we end up at war in the future? Properly at war, not jaunts off in some far corner of the world. What if our land was actually under threat? Who owns our essential services and infrastucture?

Well, a lot of it is owned now by foreign corporations. Much of it, I think is US owned, but some of it is owned by other Euro nationals as well. Friends now, but how do we know that will always be so? How easy would it be to shut us down or cause critical disruption to essential services?

What's truly depressing is all that stuff got sold off at knockdown prices, to encourage private participation (apparently: actually in order to make it easier for the governing party's friends to purchase). Garage sale prices for the nation's veins and arteries. Now we have higher prices and lesser service than in most comparable countries. The nation's coffers are regularly made to carry the cost when it goes wrong or subsidise the running of these privately owned national necessities. But the profit all goes to multi-nationals.

They bought us up with beads and blankets.

[SamIam]

I too agree with most of the list.

Especially:

I think we need to go back to having a citizen's army (yes - gasp - the draft). At this point something like one half percent of all Americans have served in the volunteer army. That means that the vast majority of Americans have no stake in whatever latest foreign "democratization" process is going on. If more Americans were impacted or potentially impacted by our foreign excursions, the government would be forced to be more responsible in carrying them out and deciding if they should be carried out in the first place.

It is not the place of Halliburten et al to provide essential services for our troops. That is the government's (military's) job. I grew up an Army brat and, back in the day, the military did just fine if not better without these private outfits which have simply become instruments used by politicians to make a profit from our continual round of wars and "peace-keeping missions."

Education - this should be so obvious, yet many want to sharply curtail or even cease funding for education on every level - from elementary to college. An educated work force will make the US a more viable competitor in the global economy. It will also mean that citizens can make more informed choices at the polls. Knowledge is power and corporate America seems to want to make sure that the people have as little power as possible. Education should not be privatized. This will only lead to education for a select (wealthy) few.

Government should not be involved in the care and feeding of mega-corporations. What hypocrites the CEO's of these outfits are - spewing the words "free market" while behind the scenes buying government influence which ensures the market is anything but free.

It is not the place of government to contrive at the enrichment of those who "serve" in Congress. Contributions to politicians should be severely limited and corporations should not be considered "people." It probably wouldn't hurt either to have members of both the House and Senate serve for one 6 year term only.

The Constitution says that Congress should promote the GENERAL welfare - not that of special interests.

It is not the place of the government to legislate matters of private morality or religion. If I am a lesbian who attends a mosque and grew up in the Mormon church, it is no one's business but my own. The government has better things to do, or it should.

The government's job is to preserve the Republic, not contrive at the creation of a plutocracy.

That is all.

[Lamplighter]

Let me echo your thoughts about the privatization of the military,
and also add the "corpor-ization" of prisons.

It's not the place of Halliburten-wannabees to provide essential services for inmates.
Inmates housed on private property are out of sight and out of mind, and a sure opportunity for corruption.
It's a job only the government should be doing with public oversight.

[Perry Winkle]

I think it would be good if we had mandatory military service like many other countries do. Aside from character building and vocational training, I think it gives everyone a good sense of being part of a nation.

[glatt]

I generally view nationalism as a negative thing.

Why do we always have to join a group so we can compete against the other groups?

Sometimes there is clearly an outside group that we need to join together against, but why force it if it isn't necessary? Can't we all get along?

[henry quirk]

In my view: to not exist.


Governance, by definition, is about the transaction between those who govern and those who are governed.

I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure the only one qualified to govern me is 'me'.


This, "Government does what people can't or won't do for themselves", seems to me, almost on the mark ('cept for that pesky little word 'government').

So: let's replace 'government' with 'proxies', making the statement, 'proxies do what people can't or won't do for themselves'.

A proxy, by the way, is nothing more or less than 'a person authorized or hired to act on behalf of another'.

The American Constitutional Republic is supposed to be about proxies/employees, not elected/appointed nobility*.

As I said in another thread: the president should be nothing more than hired help, not 'the leader of the free world'.

The President (and Congress and the Supreme Court) are supposed to managers, plumbers, janitors and maintenance folk for the physical and esoteric infrastructures of the republic**.

The whole point of limited governance (proxyhood) is for those managers, plumbers, janitors and maintenance folk to attend to that which is difficult for any one to tackle on his or her own*** (and otherwise to leave folks ALONE to rise or ****fall as each is capable or liable).

As long as the question remains, "What is the proper role of government?" (a nice way of asking 'what's the proper way for the governors to direct the governed?'), then folks are guaranteed to remain 'kept' and 'led' and 'cared for' (and sent, occasionally, to the abattoir).





*And: sure as hell the American Constitutional Republic is not supposed to be about mob rule dressed in finery ('democracy')!

**As one descends the levels (federal, state, regional, county/parish, municipality, and on and on), the same principle of proxyhood applies...right down to Joe hiring a lawn care service.

***The question of what exactly falls into the category of 'difficult for any one to tackle on his or her own' is fodder for another thread, perhaps, as it -- the question -- is subtly different from "What is the proper role of government?"

****And some will most definitely FALL...too bad...adios...pffftt!

[BigV]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

In my view: to not exist.

I have gotten the distinct impression from you that you live off the grid, on an island, alone. That's cool, but that's not where I live.

Originally Posted by henry quirk

Governance, by definition, is about the transaction between those who govern and those who are governed.

I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure the only one qualified to govern me is 'me'.


This, "Government does what people can't or won't do for themselves", seems to me, almost on the mark ('cept for that pesky little word 'government').

So: let's replace 'government' with 'proxies', making the statement, 'proxies do what people can't or won't do for themselves'.

A proxy, by the way, is nothing more or less than 'a person authorized or hired to act on behalf of another'.

The American Constitutional Republic is supposed to be about proxies/employees, not elected/appointed nobility*.

As I said in another thread: the president should be nothing more than hired help, not 'the leader of the free world'.

The President (and Congress and the Supreme Court) are supposed to managers, plumbers, janitors and maintenance folk for the physical and esoteric infrastructures of the republic**.

The whole point of limited governance (proxyhood) is for those managers, plumbers, janitors and maintenance folk to attend to that which is difficult for any one to tackle on his or her own*** (and otherwise to leave folks ALONE to rise or ****fall as each is capable or liable).

Ok, so far, so good.

Originally Posted by henry quirk

As long as the question remains, "What is the proper role of government?" (a nice way of asking 'what's the proper way for the governors to direct the governed?'), then folks are guaranteed to remain 'kept' and 'led' and 'cared for' (and sent, occasionally, to the abattoir).

Time out. You've some lovely words, henry, but I will thank you to keep them out of my mouth. The two questions you equate are not the same, and I am not saying, nicely or otherwise "How should I be bossed around?". Go back up to the top and look for the part where I said I want the government to do work that the electorate has decided needs to be done that I can't do. I am not your comrade in anarchy, nor am I a subject to be controlled, "kept", "led", "cared for" or slaughtered.

[regular.joe]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

In my view: to not exist.

I just spent a bit of time living in a country where the government really does not exist. Pakistan. What a lovely place! That's right no government getting in the way with those pesky regulations and enforcement of basic law and order. Visiting countries like Pakistan in the course of my job has really impacted my view on the role of government in our country. I have experienced first hand the idea of no government, and it is not a nice place. I am sure that I will experience the reality of no government the next time our Great Nation decides to send me to Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, the Horn of Africa or some other place where no there is a lot of no government going on.

Oh, and most of the places with not a lot of government going on have lots and lots of Religion in government going on. Hmmm....I wonder if there is a relationship there.

/rant off.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

Let me echo your thoughts about the privatization of the military,
and also add the "corpor-ization" of prisons.

It's not the place of Halliburten-wannabees to provide essential services for inmates.
Inmates housed on private property are out of sight and out of mind, and a sure opportunity for corruption.
It's a job only the government should be doing with public oversight.

Absolutly, we've seen it here in PA. Children too.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by SamIam

I too agree with most of the list.
I think we need to go back to having a citizen's army (yes - gasp - the draft).
At this point something like one half percent of all Americans have served in the volunteer army.
That means that the vast majority of Americans have no stake
in whatever latest foreign "democratization" process is going on.
If more Americans were impacted or potentially impacted by our foreign excursions,
the government would be forced to be more responsible in carrying them out
and deciding if they should be carried out in the first place.
<snip>

Originally Posted by BigV

<snip>
The draft has a lot of things going for it, including the main point you mention.
I haven't given a return to the draft much critical thought in many years though so my brains are rusty on this score.

My wife and I go round this often, and we wholeheartedly endorse Sam's argument.
But the military seems to be pleased with their "all volunteer army",
and probably would resist a permanent draft, as is likely for the general public.
All the time while recent demands on US National Guard and military families have been terrible.

The draft during the Viet Nam war did help to bring that war to a close,
but not until after the troops on the ground were overly represented
by Blacks, Hispanics, and the poor who could not find a way to avoid conscription.
The more well-to-do managed to get into a different branch of service (e.g., Air Force),
a deferment, or went to a foreign country in one guise or another.

Now back to the "HOW's" issue...
A temporary national draft before or during a military excursion would serve
a useful purpose, but would need very strong safeguards against discriminatory inductions.
.