Agreeing on the Role of the Government...

[ChrisBird]

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]

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

 

[ChrisBird]

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]

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

Are those like the politics of Polo?

 

[LNZ]

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

 

[Kian]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Bush was an idiot.

 

[ChrisBird]

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

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]

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

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.

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]

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]

This will be fun.

 

[Hadley4000]

Bush was an idiot.

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

 

[jms_gears1]

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?