Government-perfect and imperfect

Remove all ads!

In various threads we have discussed government and what is right and wrong; moral or immoral.

Some of my thoughts on the subject follow.


Society has a right and even a duty to enact laws that are deemed necessary to protect the members of that society. Thus government evolves. Society is composed of human beings and human beings are not perfect. Therefore no government is perfect. To me the best government is one that protects as many people as is reasonably possible but does not try to regulate every aspect of life. The KISS principle holds even for governments. (Keep it simple, stupid)

I would love to read others comments on what they think government should be.

KIFE principle holds here. (Keep it friendly, everyone)

 

I'm very happy with NZ's current government. However there is always room for improvement in my eyes. Our stern anti-nuclear policy is something I have an issue with. Also since we have a small population I'm surprised that we don't have a larger number of whole country votes.

Frankly I am torn between wanting a dictatorship sometimes and a democracy. There are times when I yearn for the power to make things happen that a dictator possess then I worry about the personal freedoms of people. I strongly believe a leader should have the will to make tough decisions and have the power to enforce them. I dislike constitutions that entrench non-government laws (i.e. the right to bear arms or arm bears, whatever it is in America) but I would happy with a constitution stating that laws can only be passed with a majority vote in Parliament.

I strongly dislike the amount of foreign aid our country gives when we have problems in our own country that need fixing first.

I dislike juries since I find the idea of 12 people who know very little about the law to make the most important decision reguarding it to be simply lunacy.

 

To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson (or was it John Adams?), if all people were good and perfect, then we wouldn't need a government.

In any case, I think it is somewhat difficult to be disillusioned with current democratic Western governments (e.g. U.S., Canada, France). If anything, this is because the 20th century has had more than a few examples of the disastrous consequences of certain forms of government that most of us have been happily able to avoid.

 

Perhaps government might be more effective if they did hold to KISS. If they would simply decide on a national identity and tell those that didn't like it where the border was then life would be a lot simpler. How much money is spent on committees and the like to accommodate people that want to change the system to suit their own needs? That's money that could be used for Public healthcare and Education...

 

Kiss would actually imply not forcing a straight-jacketed national identity, religion, or system of morals on people. Slavery, for example, used to be part of our culture and an accepted aspect of our society.....part of our "national identity". Where would we be now if we just "showed the abolitionists the border"? We can't be showing our dissenters to the border and expect to be an open society with minimal discrimination. In fact, that's a good way to get the exact opposite.

 

I am glad that the names of both John Adams and Thomas Jefferson have been mentioned here, because while both men are different in their outlooks on human nature, and thus their views on government, they were so close to each other personally, that their dialogues both sharpen and blend their differing views of government, as well on the nature of the individual. The real difference is in the concept of personal equality, which divided them greatly. Adams believed in the "natural aristocracy," a notion which Jefferson disagreed. Adams' view of human nature was not as lofty or optimistic as Jefferson's.

Nevertheless, John Adams' view on government is very clear, and he wrote in a systematic and concise manner on how he thought not only of how government should be constructed, but the ultimate purpose of government:

I think this sums up pretty well what should be the end of government, particularly with its emphasis on the happiness of the individual. The problem is in the particulars of constructing such a government:

It seems a strange thing that Adams, as concerned as he was with the individual, should have his presidency marred with his signing of the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. But Adams never viewed freedom of speech with the same distinction as Jefferson did, and his basically Puritan nature reflected and shaped his views on the nature and ultimate motives of the individual. Nevertheless his theory on govenment is remarkable:

Note that Adams does not comment that the government should be in the hands of the people, something which Jefferson certainly would have said (and did), but in the "hands of the people's friends." Ultimately, Adams views are shaped by a sense of Justice, Virtue, social fairness, and that government resides best in a state of order and "tranquility." Still, it is an overly optimistic view, given the current state of the American government.

[ May 09, 2006, 18:50: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

I don't think that there should be a government, I think rather that people should be able to govern themselves in small groups.

However, failing that (seeing that we're talking government here, not anarchy ), a minarchy with lots of direct democracy would be fine. The government itself should have very little power, but can be granted power for certain actions which the votes say they should be allowed to do. I can forsee a lot of problems with this system - but hey, it sure looks better (on paper...) than what we have now, which is just crap.

 

Very curious there, Abomination. I'd place myself completely opposite, saying that a nuclear issue is good and nation-wide votes aren't good

So what's right, wrong? Moral, immoral? In short, what makes a perfect government? It's certainly a tricky question to answer, as different situations call for different... well, standards of what is right and wrong. As an example, what might have been considered a good, right, government during WW2 Britian, would probably be frowned upon now, due to the change in circumstances.

In general, I would say there are a few criteria (atleast in my opinion) that make an ideal government:

-> The government must care for its people. To quote Rudyard Kipling's 'If', "walk with kings - nor lose the common touch." In other words, the government must stay in touch with the people, and should not be chosen from a sepreate 'class'. I use that term very broadly to mean anything from the good old Marx classes to even just those with enough money to pay for the presidential campaigns to those who can't.

-> I'm a fairly strong supporter of a minal government. The government should be there to ensure we retain our freedom and rights, not to enforce a load of rules and regulations on us - although in saying that, many are great, such as no-smoking or seat belt laws; so I guess as long as they don't over do it.

-> The average John Smith off the street must be able to have their say in government policy making if they choose so. This, IMO, is a vital part of democracy, and from what I understand, the failing points of many countries. Using New Zealand as an example, if I feel strongly about a policy that is been put in place, I can write in to the Select Committee who are dealing with the issue and go along to have my say, which are then fowarded to parliament in a report with policy changes. With really contraversial bills, Select Committees have been known to litrally travel the span of the country getting opinions of everyone who couldn't make it to Parliament.

-> The government's dealings must remain transperent. Another key aspect of democracy. As an example, should I wish, I should be able to walk into parliament while the house is sitting and watch on. Another issue here, which was addressed in New Zealand about two decades ago, is the Fiscal REsponbility Act, which states that the government must release annual budgets annoucing what they are spending the money on, and where they see funds going in the future 10 or so years.

-> The government should be responsible to make sure that everyone starts off on an equal footings, yet not supply things like social welfare, if they are capable to supply for themselves - "equal chances with unequal skills". In other words, Fred Simpson, whose solo mum work at the meat works, should be able to get the same education as William McNaughten, whose parents are both rich doctors. Yet should either of them fail to make the most of these opportunities, they shouldn't be able to live off the government.

I'm sure I could think of more aspects, given some time, but that'll do for now


[Edited after reading Aiky's post]
I should probably state that I agree with Nikia when she says that human's aren't perfect. Because of this, I feel a government is always needed to protect our freedom from ourselves.

 

Am so not getting into that in this thread Too many threads have been derailed this way, and bashing my political waffle can be done in PM