People for the government? Or government for the populous?

Government for the people, or people for the government?


  • Total voters
    48

Tycoon101

Loves being STRONG
Joined
Jan 22, 2005
Messages
4,454
Location
Fiftychat
I just saw V For Vendetta, and I'm curious about how people think their relationship to the government should be.

Do you believe that the populous is indebted to the government, and must comply with the government no matter what? Or do you feel that the populous should be above the government, with the government striving to please the people?
 
The government exists to serve the populous. The other way around is Authoritarianism.

People form a government to serve their interests.
A government does not form people at all.

Just as no craftsman makes a tool with the intention of serving under the tool, people do not form governments for that reason, either.
 
Arcadian83 said:
Just as no craftsman makes a tool with the intention of serving under the tool, people do not form governments for that reason, either.

But without the tool, he is useless. The craftsman is truly a slave to the tool because without the tool, he is worthless.

No government=no progress. If the populous said that it needed no government and abolished it, then humanity would crumble and fall back into caves and primitive ideas.

The populous must serve the government so they can maintain themselves and survive.
 
The government should protect the people from threats and lawlessness, inside and out. In return, the people should support the government.
 
Tycoon101 said:
If the populous said that it needed no government and abolished it, then humanity would crumble and fall back into caves and primitive ideas.
maybe medieval levels. or like in mad max...

anyway, what if the government was designed from the beginning to
be as democratic and libertarian as possible?
 
Dionysius said:
anyway, what if the government was designed from the beginning to
be as democratic and libertarian as possible?

Then it would be a government for the people. The government would work behind the scenes in that case.
 
A government is a basic necessity for any nation in today's world. However, without the people, the government wouldn't have anything to govern. The people are where it counts, the needs of numberless faces are far above those of a select (albeit elected) few. In accordance, in a republican form of government, the people should support and abide by the government so long as that government protects the people's rights and protects the people from harm. A change in governmental policies or actions should be brought about by electing officials who (supposedly) present your opinions or by submitting a public, peaceful protest. Bottom line, the government should serve the people, and the people should abide by their government's policies.
 
Tycoon101 said:
But without the tool, he is useless. The craftsman is truly a slave to the tool because without the tool, he is worthless.

No, he can make another, like how people start revolutions when they do not like their government.
The tool/government is just a means to an end. The end is the happiness of the craftsman/people.

No government=no progress.
Absurd. I for one believe that economies perform better with minimal government intervention.

If the populous said that it needed no government and abolished it, then humanity would crumble and fall back into caves and primitive ideas.

No, humans are (arguably) political animals, they will always form a government of some kind. Even an 'Anarchy' will be ruled by local warlords, or maybe a benevolent system that prevents rule by violence.

The populous must serve the government so they can maintain themselves and survive.

The populous can take care of themselves to some degree. As for the aggressive nation with a large, trained, standing army next door, however... then they'll need a government, or they'll have a new leader after an invasion anyways.

This is why I believe that the main way a government serves its people is national defense.
 
I went with the second option, but I think both would be a better answer. The people should be subservient to the government, for if no one obeys the government, chaos will ensue. On the other hand, governments exist to lead, protect, and advance the interests of the people who belong to their nations.
 
Tycoon101 said:
I just saw V For Vendetta, and I'm curious about how people think their relationship to the government should be.

Do you believe that the populous is indebted to the government, and must comply with the government no matter what? Or do you feel that the populous should be above the government, with the government striving to please the people?

Neither. The government should exist only to protect.
 
The state provides necessary or useful services which are beyond the capabilities of the individual; therefore, a citizen who enjoys or requires those services should rationally seek to strengthen and abet the state rather than oppose it, for if the state is weak, he is worse off.

On the other side, the state derives its power from its people -- not in the mushy philosophical sense, but quite physically. The power of the state is limited to the monies and productivity it can extract from its people. A state which oppresses its own people, or otherwise causes them to be worsened, only weakens itself.

In this sense, when a citizen serves his state, he serves himself, and when a state serves its people, it serves itself.
 
Simple...of the people,for the people.
 
It should be a balance, thats my belief, a government for the people will be extremely cumbersome and reactive instead of proactive in any situation, it will not be responsive to crisis and will retain enormous bureaucratic procedures. A government that regards the people as subservient to its needs is a dictatorship becomes corrupted, eventually serving its goals before the people.
 
heres an idea; immigrate from country to country every generation or so based on how honest and not-corrupt the government is*, seeing as they all go rotten eventually.

*obviously one with a good economy and jobs, too.
 
If the people arent for the government, it will collapse. The people are most likely to agree with the government if the government is for the people.
 
The government should have a small role in society and just be there to make sure stability is achieved.
 
I agree that an individual has an obligation to his state, since the state raised him and subsidised his life while he was weak. And the individual has accepted all the benefits of living in a society, tacitly accepting the debt.

However, a government should work to make the lives of its citizens better, but the only group that can measure this is the citizens. I agree that the state can be more glorious than an individual, just like a mind is more glorious than a neuron - but since the state is formed of people, (being a person) I will side with the people when the state must suffer or the person must suffer.

People are allowed to interfere with the state to improve the lives of its citizens, and in fact have an obligation to do so until their debt is paid.
 
Top Bottom