# Agreeing on the Role of the Government...



## ChrisBird (Jul 21, 2009)

I would like to apologize in advance if this thread turns into a flame/bash war. I have no intention of this happening.

I am mainly going to be speaking in terms of the American government, and am in no way smart when it comes to governments outside the US, so I cannot speak from that perspective.

However, I believe that if we could all (the majority of voters) agree on the role of government, we could spend a lot less time taking pot shots at the other political parties, and instead spend the time fixing the problems that need to be fixed. Spending the time to agree upon a set of guidelines of what the government is here for will allow us to consider and fix the problems that the government is supposed to fix.

For example:
If the government's job is to provide everyone with a safe, clean, healthy society, then healthcare would be something they could determine. BUT it would also require there to be a lot of extremely picky government workers who will spend their lives inspecting everything that is done in order to assure safety (there is something along these lines, but from what I know there is not many of them, and they don't always do their job).

Or on the other hand, the government is supposed to be small, and only provide a military to protect the people's freedoms and rights, then they should not be involving themselves in anything but that.

So what I am trying to get at, is that once we agree on what the role of the government is, and make a set of guidelines which they must follow, we can spend the time to fix only the problems they are in charge of fixing, and not overstepping their bounds and doing things that aren't necessary.

I do realize that this topic is one of the main reasons there is a distinction between parties (Democrat, Republican, Green Party, etc,) but if we were to be idealist, 1) What do you believe the role of the government should be (for the USA, or other countries) and 2) How do we go about agreeing on this set of guidelines?


----------



## jcuber (Jul 21, 2009)

This is one of the things that you dont discuss here (polotics and religion).


----------



## ChrisBird (Jul 21, 2009)

May I politely copy and paste the ruled defines in the sticky for the Off-Topic Discussion forum.

"Feel free to post all non-cube related stuff in this forum, just keep it clean."

And also point out the terms "Off-Topic Discussion"

I am not trying to start a debate, but rather get peoples opinions on the role of government.


----------



## mark3 (Jul 21, 2009)

jcuber said:


> This is one of the things that you dont discuss here (polotics and religion).



Are those like the politics of Polo?


----------



## LNZ (Jul 21, 2009)

I actually live in Australia and I was really glad that G. W. Bush is gone.


----------



## Kian (Jul 21, 2009)

This is going to be a flame war. Butt.

There ought to be no debate in the US. This is what the American Federal government can do: The Constitution. That is what MY government can do. Others are very different, of course.

It is entitled only to these enumerated rights. And, as the 10th Amendment reads, *"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
*
Today this is wildly ignored by almost everyone, mostly because nobody has a damn clue what this, possibly the most revolutionary document in the history of the world, says.


----------



## jcuber (Jul 21, 2009)

Sorry, typo. I know it is "allowed", but usually doesn't work out in the end. 

On topic:

I believe it depends on the exact issues invlolved. e.g. environment, where I believe the government should help protect it.


----------



## ChrisBird (Jul 21, 2009)

LNZ said:


> I actually live in Australia and I was really glad that G. W. Bush is gone.



Please no pointless flaming of past, present, or future presidents.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the original post.


----------



## Bryan (Jul 21, 2009)

This seems to be a really naive hypothesis. First of all, even if you have a common goal, there are many different ways of achieving it. Second, you're going to have conflicting goals.


----------



## teller (Jul 21, 2009)

You will never get people to agree on the role of government anytime soon. And further, it doesn't seem possible to reason with anyone about it, either--political debates on TV and in forums like this always end up the same way: Nobody ever changes their mind or listens to any evidence that contradicts their current position. Or it's really rare...I do know one guy who went from ultra-capitalist to ultra-communist but he's an anomaly. Usually it's the other way around--getting older and having to give up huge amounts of money in taxes on a wasteful and incompetent government sometimes sours people on their former youthful socialist ideals.


----------



## ChrisBird (Jul 21, 2009)

monkeydude1313 said:


> I do realize that this topic is one of the main reasons there is a distinction between parties (Democrat, Republican, Green Party, etc,) *but if we were to be idealist, *1) What do you believe the role of the government should be (for the USA, or other countries) and 2) How do we go about agreeing on this set of guidelines?



I am not trying to make naive statements, I am asking for people's opinions on the issue of the role of the government.


----------



## Kyle Barry (Jul 21, 2009)

It is unfortunate that this debate exists in the U.S. The constitution sets out, more clearly than we take it, exactly what the role of government should be.


----------



## jms_gears1 (Jul 21, 2009)

Kyle Barry said:


> It is unfortunate that this debate exists in the U.S. The constitution sets out, more clearly than we take it, exactly what the role of government should be.



Agreed. In all honesty there is no debate or question that should exist with this premises(sp) the constitution states clear guidelines as to what can and cant be done by the federal and local governments.

What you seem to be suggesting is a complete overhaul of the entire US constitution which is not going to happen. If you look back in the couple hundred years that the constitution has stood there has been a total of 27 ammendments. So in all these years its been changed a total of 25 (18th and 21st dont count as 21 was just appealing 18 (i think those were the ammendments) and you think that we can overhaul it completly?:fp


----------



## Dene (Jul 21, 2009)

Bush was an idiot.


----------



## ChrisBird (Jul 21, 2009)

jms_gears1 said:


> Kyle Barry said:
> 
> 
> > It is unfortunate that this debate exists in the U.S. The constitution sets out, more clearly than we take it, exactly what the role of government should be.
> ...



I'm not suggesting anything be changed, or done about the current one.

I'm asking for what YOU would think is the best thing to do.


----------



## jms_gears1 (Jul 21, 2009)

MonkeyDude1313 said:


> jms_gears1 said:
> 
> 
> > Kyle Barry said:
> ...




i think the best thing to do is to listen to this Audio Worth Listening To

what your suggesting is that we need to agree on what the Gov can do and cant do so we can determine what problems they can and cant fix, however the constitution lays out plainly what they can and cant do, which in turns infers about what problems they are allowed to "fix" (fix meaning anymore putting a band-aid on an amputated limb...)

There really is no debate as to the boundaries of the Gov and therefore the point is moot(sp)


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Jul 21, 2009)

This

Except for the 16th and 17th amendments, I think it's pretty much a perfect document. 

I believe that the role of the federal government should be little more than the defense of the people against foreign invasion, maintenance of overseas trade relations, and whatever regulations are necessary to ensure the stability of interstate commerce.


----------



## Hadley4000 (Jul 21, 2009)

This will be fun.


----------



## Hadley4000 (Jul 21, 2009)

Dene said:


> Bush was an idiot.



He still is. Just isn't in office anymore.


----------



## jms_gears1 (Jul 21, 2009)

Ethan Rosen said:


> This
> 
> Except for the 16th and 17th amendments, I think it's pretty much a perfect document.
> 
> I believe that the role of the federal government should be little more than the defense of the people against foreign invasion, maintenance of overseas trade relations, and whatever regulations are necessary to ensure the stability of interstate commerce.



so basically a beefed up Article Of Confederation?


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Jul 21, 2009)

jms_gears1 said:


> Ethan Rosen said:
> 
> 
> > This
> ...



No, basically a strict enterpretation of the constitution, except for the 16th and 17th amendments.


----------



## teller (Jul 21, 2009)

The Nature of Government


----------



## Ton (Jul 21, 2009)

MonkeyDude1313 said:


> How do we go about agreeing on this set of guidelines?



For me, it is set, happened about 2000 years ago .....


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jul 21, 2009)

Ethan Rosen said:


> This
> 
> Except for the 16th and 17th amendments, I think it's pretty much a perfect document.


Yes, and it wouldn't be nearly as perfect if you left out the 18th and 21st amendments. 

(I'm too sensible to make any actual political statements here; I'm just being a brat.)


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Jul 21, 2009)

Well ideally the 18th amendment would never have been passed, but the 21st amendment basically just makes them both dead weight. Since neither of them have any current effect, there isn't any harm in having them.


----------



## anythingtwisty (Jul 21, 2009)

Ugh, Ayn Rand? Some of the worst popular writing that I have ever come across. The government's role is to keep everyone safe,secure, equal, and happy.


----------



## ajmorgan25 (Jul 21, 2009)

MonkeyDude1313 said:


> However, I believe that if we could all (the majority of voters) agree on the role of government, we could spend a lot less time taking pot shots at the other political parties, and instead spend the time fixing the problems that need to be fixed.



This usually seems to be the root of political problems, even if it isn't always obvious. So I find it kind of funny that you're asking people to agree on the one thing they _cannot_ agree on. Even if we _did_ agree on the role of government, the extent of its role is also going to be questioned.


----------



## ajmorgan25 (Jul 21, 2009)

Dene said:


> Bush was an idiot.



That was insightful...


----------



## jms_gears1 (Jul 21, 2009)

Ton said:


> MonkeyDude1313 said:
> 
> 
> > How do we go about agreeing on this set of guidelines?
> ...



+1
Watashi mo


----------



## fanwuq (Jul 21, 2009)

Ethan Rosen said:


> Well ideally the 18th amendment would never have been passed, but the 21st amendment basically just makes them both dead weight. Since neither of them have any current effect, there isn't any harm in having them.



But it's inefficiency! Any real FMC solver would have cancelled them immediately.  Save 2 moves! Even better if you can just do an insertion into the Constitution skeleton and cancel all the extra amendments. (probably does not make sense in politics, but it works in FMC. So the analogy is a fail.)


----------



## Rama (Jul 21, 2009)

If Palin only would've worn Wayfarer's, then McCain would've beaten Obama by a long mile.



jms_gears1 said:


> Ton said:
> 
> 
> > MonkeyDude1313 said:
> ...



Yip.


----------



## ChrisBird (Jul 21, 2009)

anythingtwisty said:


> Ugh, Ayn Rand? Some of the worst popular writing that I have ever come across. *The government's role is to keep everyone safe,secure, equal, and happy.*



And what does that include?

Having a government agent take you to school everyday in a thickly armored van with helicopter backup?

That keeps you safe and secure. The government would not allow kids to be taken to school in cars driven by their parents because that would put the governments job at risk. Who knows if the parent has had anything to drink recently, or done anything to lose their ability to drive properly.

Care to explain what your "safe, secure, equal, and happy" includes?

For some people, only illegal drugs make them happy, so should the government provide that?


----------



## Lord Voldemort (Jul 22, 2009)

Hopefully the role of government won't be unanimously agreed on anytime soon.
Wouldn't that eliminate competition in elections? 

@ anythingtwisty - That's an awfully long and vague list you have there, and it really reveals nothing about that you believe. Especially happy. Maybe I won't be happy unless the government pays for a Meffert's 4x4 for me. Should the government pay for it then?


----------



## Dene (Jul 22, 2009)

Hadley4000 said:


> Dene said:
> 
> 
> > Bush was an idiot.
> ...



Good point. Although you have to look at it from the perspective of relevance. He plays no significant role in the world anymore (as far as I'm aware) so it is only fair to refer to him in the context of his political reign.


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Jul 22, 2009)

MonkeyDude1313 said:


> For some people, only illegal drugs make them happy, so should the government provide that?



No, but they should legalize them


----------



## ajmorgan25 (Jul 22, 2009)

Ethan Rosen said:


> MonkeyDude1313 said:
> 
> 
> > For some people, only illegal drugs make them happy, so should the government provide that?
> ...



And if it endangers the lives of others?


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Jul 22, 2009)

ajmorgan25 said:


> Ethan Rosen said:
> 
> 
> > MonkeyDude1313 said:
> ...



If someone injures/kills someone on a drug, the person should have the same legal consequences as if they killed someone off the drug. Driving on an impairing drug is a different story though.


----------



## miniGOINGS (Jul 22, 2009)

In Canada, it seems like each party has a different perspective of what the government should control/change, which ends up being the main problem itself.


----------



## ChrisBird (Jul 22, 2009)

miniGOINGS said:


> In Canada, it seems like each party has a different perspective of what the government should control/change, which ends up being the main problem itself.



Thats exactly what I said about the USA in my main post.

Ethan_Rosen: I do agree that drugs should be legalized.

I don't know if this is a workable philosophy but:

The only things that should be illegal are the things that jeopardize the lives or rights or freedoms of others.

Which is exactly why Alcohol isn't illegal until you hurt someone while doing it, or driving.


----------



## Feanaro (Jul 22, 2009)

MonkeyDude1313 said:


> LNZ said:
> 
> 
> > I actually live in Australia and I was really glad that G. W. Bush is gone.
> ...



I absolutely hate whoever is going to be president next, grrrrrr...
lol


----------



## ajmorgan25 (Jul 22, 2009)

Ethan Rosen said:


> ajmorgan25 said:
> 
> 
> > Ethan Rosen said:
> ...



Well obviously they would receive the same sort of punishment. The point is when the drug _causes_ danger to others.


----------



## ChrisBird (Jul 22, 2009)

ajmorgan25 said:


> Ethan Rosen said:
> 
> 
> > ajmorgan25 said:
> ...



If you mean by doing the drug, you are going to hurt someone, that is not true at all.

Doing the drug harms nothing but yourself, and then going out, while under the influence of drugs and killing someone is your choice (and a very stupid one I might add.) If you know doing something will cause you to go do something dumb, you should be smart enough not to do it. And not need the government to hold your hand because you can't do it yourself.


----------



## EmersonHerrmann (Jul 22, 2009)

MonkeyDude1313 said:


> May I politely copy and paste the ruled defines in the sticky for the Off-Topic Discussion forum.
> 
> "Feel free to post all non-cube related stuff in this forum, just keep it clean."
> 
> ...



He is just saying that (judging from his past experiences) that this often does not turn out well. He does not mean it literally.


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Jul 22, 2009)

ajmorgan25 said:


> Ethan Rosen said:
> 
> 
> > ajmorgan25 said:
> ...



I'm not 100% sure what you are saying here. If you mean a drug that causes people to get extremely violent, then there really needs to be a point where we don't blame the drug but we blame the person. If you take a drug knowing that it will get increase your testosterone levels to a point where you are going to break anything that you can, it's really your fault that you took it in the first place, and you should be put on trial for those crimes in the same way that you would if you did the crimes off the drug.


----------



## miniGOINGS (Jul 22, 2009)

MonkeyDude1313 said:


> miniGOINGS said:
> 
> 
> > In Canada, it seems like each party has a different perspective of what the government should control/change, which ends up being the main problem itself.
> ...



Mhm, I was just clarifying that this seems to be the point in Canada as well as the States and probably every other country out there.


----------



## ajmorgan25 (Jul 22, 2009)

@MonkeyDude1313: Obviously the drug doesn't _make_ you go out and endanger other people. The fact is that they contribute to actions that endanger other people and when it comes to providing general security, many people think they should be outlawed.

@EthanRosen: I have never said that a person that commits a crime under the influence of a drug should be put under trial differently than a person who committed the same crime without being under the influence of the drug. I have no idea where you are getting that from. What I'm saying is that a drug can influence an individual to act in a very irresponsible manner and in some cases, can endanger other innocent people. For this reason, many drugs that can provoke such behavior are outlawed or restricted.


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Jul 22, 2009)

People who take a drug knowing that it will influence them to commit a felony are already acting an a very irresponsible manner. IT shouldn't take a law to stop a person from being reckless, because if you look at any high school or even a lot of middle schools in America, you can see that the law doesn't really stop anything. What should stop people from acting in a reckless manner is knowing that certain drugs will make someone more likely to harm someone and destroy property.


----------



## anythingtwisty (Jul 22, 2009)

Safe= Able to live a normal life without fear of shoddily built construction, etc., that may endanger someone. Also includes maniacs with firearms.

Secure= Able to depend on unchanging variables in the outside world (job, etc.).

Equal= Not exposed to prejudice or discrimination of ANY kind. This includes age, gender, race, nationality, beliefs, and many others that I have not listed.

Happy= Able to enjoy yourself and live life to the fullest.


----------



## ChrisBird (Jul 22, 2009)

anythingtwisty said:


> Safe= Able to live a normal life without fear of shoddily built construction, etc., that may endanger someone. Also includes maniacs with firearms.
> 
> Secure= Able to depend on unchanging variables in the outside world (job, etc.).
> 
> ...



And how do you propose the government ensure this?


----------



## anythingtwisty (Jul 22, 2009)

Regulations, such as banning firearms, having well-paid safety inspectors, free healthcare, insurance overhaul, and many others that I will name later after I get some sleep.


----------



## ajmorgan25 (Jul 22, 2009)

anythingtwisty said:


> Regulations, such as banning firearms, having well-paid safety inspectors, free healthcare, insurance overhaul, and many others that I will name later after I get some sleep.



Switzerland seems to be doing fine and it *requires* that males keep fully automatic rifles at home.

And despite what people think, there's no such thing as free healthcare.


----------



## Kyle Barry (Jul 22, 2009)

"Regulations, such as banning firearms, having well-paid safety inspectors, free healthcare, insurance overhaul, and many others that I will name later after I get some sleep."

- Well, as proven by 100s of tests, banning firearms is a great way to restrict our freedoms, while raising violent crime and homicides. Free healthcare, of course does not exist, and will drastically halt the advancement of healthcare quality, along with many other downfalls. Forcing people to spend their money on government programs, which are always inefficient, expensive, and usually useless, seems absurd. If we want it, we can put money towards it, if we don't, we won't. End of story. The government isn't the moral voice that tells us what is ethically necessary for us to pay for.

As to your Ayn Rand comment...She is brilliant, an exceptional writer, and is a genius of a philosopher.


----------



## Hadley4000 (Jul 22, 2009)

ajmorgan25 said:


> @MonkeyDude1313: Obviously the drug doesn't _make_ you go out and endanger other people. The fact is that they contribute to actions that endanger other people and when it comes to providing general security, many people think they should be outlawed.





Some drugs are known to cause violent behavior like that(Meth, PCP), so the reasonable answer is to keep those illegal. Marijuana on the other hand, you just have to worry about choking on Cheetos.


----------



## ajmorgan25 (Jul 22, 2009)

Hadley4000 said:


> ajmorgan25 said:
> 
> 
> > @MonkeyDude1313: Obviously the drug doesn't _make_ you go out and endanger other people. The fact is that they contribute to actions that endanger other people and when it comes to providing general security, many people think they should be outlawed.
> ...




Didn't mean for my post to apply to all drugs. Some deserve it, some don't. But, you seem to get my point.


----------



## Kian (Jul 22, 2009)

ajmorgan25 said:


> Hadley4000 said:
> 
> 
> > ajmorgan25 said:
> ...



Of course, but people do damaging (and even deadly things) when they drink alcohol, too. Does that mean we should ban that, as well? Drivers that don't get enough sleep are more prone to accidents. Should we mandate a minimum sleep time? Obviously we can't be the parents of a nation.

Basically, you can look at the drug war two ways. Either in terms of rights or in terms of practicality. I would defer to the former by they are both reasonable.

Basically, I think telling anyone what to do with their own body short of harming others is patently absurd. Obviously people will do dangerous things, and they should be punished for them, but I don't think it should matter to the law WHY they did them. I think that's silly (I have the same feeling on "hate" crimes, which make absolutely no sense when you really think about how silly it is to try to use what bad reason someone used to commit a crime. If the crime is the same, then punishment should be the same.)

But, even if you're looking at this practically, it's silly to try the war on drugs anymore. It has woefully failed in ridding our nation of drugs to the point where drug use is far higher then it was when the "war on drugs" began in the early 70s. It's an impossible fight that keeps law enforcement from dealing with crimes against people, helps to create an unbelievably dangerous underground, wastes a ridiculous amount of money, and makes the usage of these drugs far less safe then if it was in the open and you could trust that the E you bought from Walgreens wasn't cut with something that was even more dangerous.

Basically, trying to keep people from doing drugs is impossible, and I see no good reason to keep this up. Let's get real, what does making drugs illegal in the US do? All it does is waste a lot, it sure as hell doesn't prevent anyone from doing them. I know almost everyone could get their hands on pretty much anything really quickly.

I don't do drugs. Hell, I don't even drink and well more than of age, but this garbage has got to go.


----------

