I was reading the Abortion thread and noticing that in the question of legalization (which I agree with most in the thread is secondary to the actual issue) the conflicting ideas of "a woman's right to her own body" and "the right to preserve life" were brought up. Now, in the case of abortion, I would agree with psycholopher's observation that criminalizing would be a sociopolitical disaster, and that if we really want to end it, legislation is not the way to do that. However, let us throw away this pesky thing we call "reality" and step into an ideal world, where criminalizing abortion would actually end it. Is there something inherently wrong about the government drafting such legislation? Although I would like to see views on that question, this brings me to my larger question, which I think one ought to have an answer to before one can answer my previous one, and that is simply: Ideally, what do you see the role of government being? I don't think we've got any true anarchists on this forum, so we all agree that government should exist. As such, what should its role be?

(Just to clarify, I chose to put this topic in this forum because this is a philosophical question on the role of government and not a discussion of any particular piece of U.S. or world news, so it seemed most appropriate here.)

#1 The government must be for the people, not the people for the government.

The government's role is to provide us with an organized society where we can interact with eachother, increase our chances of survival and basicly cooperate. Governments also protect us and give us needed services like police, fire departments, roads, etc...

Government is a necessary evil.

Where a group of peoples are not able to govern themselves, they require the oversight and correction of a higher authority. If a community were made up of citizens with exceedingly high morals and ethics, no government would be required. This Utopia simply doesn't exist, therefore the structured ruling body over the masses is required.

In tribal communities, it was the "cheiftain". Usually they exhibited leaderships through warrior-like strength and courage... or through knowledgeable wisdom. In some rare cases, they exhibited both. As communities grew beyond the bounds of control for a single person or a family (like royalty), it required sub-level governance of nobles and lords... or tribal elders. With the creation of currency, laws had to be created to protect the unwary. Usually that meant the young and foolish which were easily duped into giving up their wealth.

Sex and marriage were ruled greatly by Society's restraint... but came more under the purview of government since there were issues that had to be addressed that the moral majority simply couldn't. After all, diversity in religion and open-mindedness couldn't resolve the issues that arose.

So where there is an absence of common sense in people governing themselves, a structured system must exist... and that is the "government" which we all ultimately have in any part of the world. Sadly, it's effects are not universally felt or noticed.

The Government is necessary, but not evil. The Government is, in my opinion, the opposite of evil. I'm not talking about the people in it; they may indeed be evil, but the Government and its task are not evil.

Without the Government, there would be no taxes. Where would we be without taxes? No public health services, no police, nothing to protect us, nothing to help us, but ourselves.
No criminal courts. No prisons. How would we deal with criminals?

You see, the Government is not evil at all. The Government is here to help us.

I feel that the social contract, as laid out by Hobbes, really does wrap up pretty well what the government is, and what its role should be. While yes, "restricting our freedoms" might be considered evil by some, I do believe that if done in the proper way, it doesn't have to be. Laws of nature are harsh, cruel, and unforgiving. A government should be somthing that interposes itself between that. It needs to be for the people, helpful, and forgiving, but firm.

But the people in it are what makes up the government, which is why most view it as evil. Ideally government is the opposite of evil. But what it comes down to are the people within a government.
I am not an anarchist, but the human race has existed much longer than organized government. And although you point out that even in the most primal times there were leaders, the ideas of what government is today haven't existed for long comparatively.
But government isn't necessary, but it's necessary for progression to exist. Because without it, the human race wouldn't have come very far, and we would all still probably be living in very primal conditions.

Well put.

Good sir, perhaps I should make sure that was a literary freedom when defining a non-living thing.

It isn't "evil" in the sense we apply to despicably cruel, heart-less people. Sorry on any inference to you there, Delta. <chuckling> But the fact that humanity needs government makes it a necessity so that both death and taxes are the only certainties we can count on in our lifes. Death isn't evil either, but we sure don't look forward to it or being taxed to that point in time.

Ideally, taxation should also be followed representation. Instead of pouring money into some entity's coffers, we want to have a little say on how it is spent and sometimes why it should be coming back to help us. We kinda like the ideal of voting on who takes the public offices, judging for ourselves who has sound reasoning in the measures they support and to change our minds when we are discontent (even if it's not that office-holder's fault). Inaction by public officials is practically the worst possible thing that could happen. Yet there are some simply hoping we can get through another new seating of Congress without wasting time on trivial, ridiculous laws that end up hampering us.

To me, yes, it's insiduously evil that we get into a mindset that we have to be regulated to feel secure. If I were in a state that had only a handful of electorial votes, only 3-4 Congressional districts, an ethnic diversity backing myriads of special interest groups; then how would I feel there would be any kind of equal representation based upon taxes? How do you insure that the person making a million-dollar contribution doesn't end up with more representation via a candidate that ultimately becomes a yes-man in keeping his pre-election commitments?

We try to pass laws to protect us from unfairness, from abuse, from the wrong behaviours that have established themselves. Yet we still struggle on how to define fairness when it comes to campaign-fund reporting?

I love the Internet for the resources it provides to those interested in learning more about their candidates. It gives a person a wide-open research library to see what laws are on the books, which bills are enroute to becoming law and who supported what. It doesn't tell us who sold or traded their votes... nor for what they got in return. That's the fun of those in power... the secret dealings, the feeling of being in control of something and having the authority to make things happen. Heck no, they don't want to tell us why they voted for allowing bird feces to be dumped into a public waterway. (Poor example??). Yet I think it's chicken-shit when the congress people make choices and try to make it sound like the arguement was plausibly justified... by some minor player in their party, some low-level staffer or some wanna-be pundit that was sold a "bill of goods" (to use a cliche).

Yes, the fact that this is something too ungovernable in an organization known as government, yeah, I will continue to think that the root of all evil is money and power... hence the reason of that paradoxial twist like this is an evil to simple logic.

No, you are right, government isn't evil any more than an hand-gun is. Yet we want either to be handled responsibly.

The role of government is to help the proletariat live out the best of its functions. It's role is to help everyone get a fair chance at succeeding in happiness and life.

The role of the government is to protect the people.

Also, I would argue that the government does not restrict our freedom, but instead enhances it.
Let's assume for a second that instead of living in a democracy, we lived in anarchy. We could do whatever we like whenever we like. We would be abstractly free. Now, let us assume someone came along and forced us into slavery. What legal force would we appeal to to make a case against this slavery, to show that, in fact, we really are free? We could do no such thing, as the idea of freedom in an anarchy is an absract idea.

It is the Constitution itself that sets those freedoms into writing and makes us concretely free.

I agree with Kirtar. The primary role of government is to protect the well being of its citizens.

It is only in a "state" that Order, Freedom, Equality, and Justice are possible. In a state of nature, the only relevant value is Power. In a state of civilization, power is held by an authority, the government, and the government brings Order, Freedom, Equality, and justice into being. Those values cannot exist in a state of nature, unless they are subordinated to random "Power." In the state of civilization, these values (OFEJ) become assecible to the "powerles," the people.

I agree with the people who think government is for protection and is not evil.

The government is to protect the liberties, rights, and wellbeing of the common people and its citizens. Human morales, wants, and needs have supplied ourselves with what we deem to be universal human rights, needs, and liberties. Government is created to defend its people and their rights from those who would otherwise remove or exploit it.

I concur