What is the Purpose of Government?

[Fox Lokison]

I've noticed a lot of little discussions cropping up lately, about what the role of government is. Be that in people's lives, their duties, their responsibilities, people's responsibilities to them, what their limits should be... So I thought I'd open a little thread on the matter, see what people think.

Personally, I think the purpose of government is to provide for the people's needs. That can be as direct as giving them food and water when in need, or it can be as indirect as protecting citizens while they grow their own food on their own land. When a group of people come together to build their own nation, there needs to be some sort of system to ensure that nation - and the people in it - are safe, well, and thriving. So my basic bar for a government is to provide for the people. That can come in a variety of forms, though. The people might just need food, water, and security... but they also might need ethnic tensions to be soothed. They might need their religion recognized. They might need protection from discrimination. Needs aren't just simple material things, but a complicated web that takes a lot to provide for.

I'll admit, that's probably why I lean a bit more left. I don't think there's a reason for a government to exist if it doesn't provide, and I don't think a government should exist if it provides just enough to scrape by, or provides in order to control people. If your government gives you food and water, but also controls every aspect of your life in an authoritarian regime, I wouldn't say that's providing in the proper way. It shouldn't be a means of control, but a method to uplift the nation as a whole.

A secondary purpose is to enforce laws and keep the peace, but I think that falls under providing. A nation needs stability and order to function. So providing peace and security is just providing another need to the people. How a government goes about that, however... well, that's where it gets tricky for me. If a religious minority is being repeatedly mistreated, that's bad. Both on the personal moral level, and for the nation as a whole. But if the government passes laws protecting that religion, it could cause more unrest among people who think that religion is bad, or a threat. If you follow my train of thought, on providing, the government's job is to provide for the most people possible. That means shafting this religion. But if you follow my moral code, that means this religion should be protected and have equal rights, even if it upsets others. So, my own beliefs kind of contradict on this matter.

I guess I'll end this with a quote that sums up my thoughts on government; “People shouldn't be afraid of their government. Governments should be afraid of their people.”

[Formless]

The purpose of a government is to cultivate and maintains the needs and requirements of its citizens by allowing them to practice their liberty to pursue such needs and requirements within the given boundaries that maintains the peace and prosperity of the nation.

The Government is responsible for creating, providing and maintaining the infrastructure of the nations on which its citizens can pursue their needs.

Boundaries are defined by laws set by said government that does not impede or infringe about the rights of any citizen.

[Haibane]

In my view a government is a body that creates and upholds a social structure and legal framework that grants its citizens protection (including from each other) and whatever freedoms it thinks is suitable and necessary. It should also provide for their needs. In times of threat, of whatever kind, a government should have powers to do whatever is necessary to contain, obviate or defend against that threat. To be effective a government must also be recognised by it's peer organisations in other states.

[Bezukhov]

Woah, that's quite a tough one!

From a political science standpoint, one of the most recurring definitions in the field can be summed up as follows: governing essentially means taking ultimate responsibility for the political community and its problems. Internally: maintaining unity and preserving the political community (such as security and welfare measures). Externally: managing relations with other polities (such as war and diplomacy).

It is by and large a rather loose definition, but that's pretty much the one I begin with when teaching: but then again, government functions have consistently changed in the last century. Some would argue we are now facing a progressive withdrawal of national governments to the benefit of international markets and companies. Others - like Bauman - discussed how the very same concepts of 'safety' and 'protection' have changed throughout the last decades.

So, yeah, tough - but extremely compelling - issue!  :-)

[RedRose]

As much as I like my freedom, I like that I don't have to handle it myself if someone goes overboard

[Fox Lokison]

Woah, that's quite a tough one!

From a political science standpoint, one of the most recurring definitions in the field can be summed up as follows: governing essentially means taking ultimate responsibility for the political community and its problems. Internally: maintaining unity and preserving the political community (such as security and welfare measures). Externally: managing relations with other polities (such as war and diplomacy).

It is by and large a rather loose definition, but that's pretty much the one I begin with when teaching: but then again, government functions have consistently changed in the last century. Some would argue we are now facing a progressive withdrawal of national governments to the benefit of international markets and companies. Others - like Bauman - discussed how the very same concepts of 'safety' and 'protection' have changed throughout the last decades.

So, yeah, tough - but extremely compelling - issue!  :-)

I would love to hear more on this - sounds like you've got some experience in the area!

As much as I like my freedom, I like that I don't have to handle it myself if someone goes overboard

Freedom vs security. What do we give up to be safe? I really like that part of the debate in particular, tbh. It's a very individual thing. Lots of opinions.

[Bezukhov]

I would love to hear more on this - sounds like you've got some experience in the area!

Freedom vs security. What do we give up to be safe? I really like that part of the debate in particular, tbh. It's a very individual thing. Lots of opinions.

I'd be happy to help with the discussion, but then again – it's a huge field (and I'm hardly a specialist!). Any particular topic caught your eye?

[gaggedLouise]

As much as I like my freedom, I like that I don't have to handle it myself if someone goes overboard

Agree, A government (and the public organs it is running) has to be able to solve real problems, to take on difficult real issues that threaten to fracture society, problems that affect everyday life (or could derail it over time in the long run). It's not enough by itself if the government technically represents so and so many percent of the population, by a democratic election, but is a lame duck on most real problems. If that kind of government becomes the normal one over time, then democracy loses credibility in the country and more and more people will start looking for autocratic strongmen who "will at least make a difference for us".

[Fox Lokison]

I'd be happy to help with the discussion, but then again – it's a huge field (and I'm hardly a specialist!). Any particular topic caught your eye?

Hrm, the point of unity as the government's responsibility interests me. Mostly on a personal level. Because I come from a marginalized group, I'm stuck in the position of wanting and needing equal rights, but knowing that getting those rights could absolutely further divide my already-divided country. My right to not be discriminated against on the basis of my gender identity isn't all that society-ending, but it's taken as such by people who believe they're being 'forced' to accept people like me, and that it's an attack on their faith. They've already proven they'll fight for this supposed cause, too. So in recent years, I've really been thinking about the implications of it all. I remember the uproar around gay marriage being legalized, and how that got a negative response. People felt the government was attacking them and their faith by going above the states and legalizing it. That resentment was strong, and it simmered with a lot of other resentments. Then I read books like The Politics of Losing, and realize how that resentment, no matter how unfounded, is causing divides.

It's really all altered my perception on what role government should play in this struggle. I used to think "give me rights, and let the fuckers simmer", and in a way, I still do. But I'm also aware of the implications of those actions, and how government can't act as freely as it might like. It acts with the consent of the governed, and like it or not, those other folks who hate me are part of the governed. What are your thoughts on maintaining unity? Should it be a priority above all? Personally, I think it can lead to nationalism (as it has in America) and prejudice against 'outsiders' (again, as it has in America) but also, there needs to be some level of it, or else the country will tear itself apart. But how can there be unity when there's groups in the country that want the other groups dead or gone? And what does a government do in those cases? Personally, I'm a Paradox of Tolerance guy - can't tolerate intolerance - but that always works out nicer on paper than it does in reality, especially when people's definitions of intolerance are subjective.

[elone]

Here in the US we have two governments, federal and state. They both have different roles and responsibilities, a major piece of contention between republicans and democrats.  I think that the most basic role of government is to serve the peoples needs where needed and necessary, and protect the people and country from foreign interference, at least in a democratic system.

[stormwyrm]

I'm a bit surprised no one has brought up Thomas Hobbes' 1651 book Leviathan yet. It is one of the most influential works on political philosophy. Hobbes begins with trying to figure out what the state of nature of humans is, before the existence of societies and civilisation. In that state, the only true natural law is the law of the jungle: survival at any cost. Nothing else matters beyond that. Since the natural inequalities among people aren't really all that great as to give anyone truly overwhelming superiority, everyone then has to live in fear that the others they encounter are going to lie, steal, cheat, and/or otherwise do violence to them so that they can survive. Of course, most people are usually better than that, but this worst case scenario is not really all that uncommon. There are psychopaths to whom this sort of behaviour is second nature, and desperate people will do whatever they have to. And in the state of nature, there are a lot of desperate people.

Hereby it is manifest that during the time men live without a common Power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called War; and such a war as is of every man against every man. [...] In such condition there is no place for Industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continual Fear, and danger of violent death; And the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

Hobbes then goes on to describe the way out of this state of nature. People will have to agree to a social contract whereby they give up some of the absolute liberties that they enjoyed in the state of nature to form a Commonwealth, the Leviathan of the title, to grant them a measure of peace and security.

The final cause, end, or design of men (who naturally love liberty, and dominion over others) in the introduction of that restraint upon themselves, in which we see them live in Commonwealths, is the foresight of their own preservation, and of a more contented life thereby; that is to say, of getting themselves out from that miserable condition of war which is necessarily consequent, as hath been shown, to the natural passions of men when there is no visible power to keep them in awe, and tie them by fear of punishment to the performance of their covenants...

This is of course the point where Hobbes and I will quibble about how much of our natural liberties we should trade to the Leviathan, and the precise form the Leviathan should take, but I will agree with him on at least one point: the Commonwealth of the Leviathan must have a monopoly on the legitimate application of violence. Without this, the Leviathan will not have the power to keep its members in awe of it, and thus be impotent to its purpose. If you are part of the Commonwealth, then you may not lie, steal, cheat, or otherwise do violence to others who are also part of the Commonwealth, on pain of punishment. Thus is the greatest evil of the state of nature, the fear of violent death, quelled.

From there, the Commonwealth is supposed to be structured so as to work for the common good of all of its members. Removing the fear of violent death is only the beginning.

[Fox Lokison]

To be honest, I haven't brought up Hobbes because I can't say I agree with the man on the nature of human beings. So I fundamentally disagree with several of his conclusions simply because of the ideas they're based on. But then again, that's one of the issues of government, and I'm glad you've pointed it out - there's not a consensus on what human nature is. We have different ideas of governing because we have different ideas of what humanity needs or wants. Personally, though, I don't agree with Hobbes, both on the nature of humans, and on the idea that a strong central authority is the only way to truly reign in these impulses he thinks we have. I especially don't agree with how much power he seems to want to give a central authority.

[Fox Lokison]

To quickly clarify - I don't subscribe to the "humans are noble and above such base urges" idea, either. I think we are animals, albeit higher evolved ones, and we do have base urges from which, we get our desires. However, I don't think those base urges are all violent, and nor do I think that we'd simply devolve back into them should a strong central authority not exist, as Hobbes seems to. His arguments posit that without this authority, man would be violent and uncontrollable, and simply go back to this natural state of violence. I don't think that's true, and there's evidence to the contrary throughout history. I think violent is a symptom of human existence, but I don't think it's so much of our base state as Hobbes does. Cooperative species like ourselves have proven that there's more ways than one to beat the odds and survive, ways that don't include violence against one another. It's just one thing in the toolbox - but Hobbes always struck me as a "no toolbox, only hammer" kind of guy.

[stormwyrm]

I don't fully agree with Hobbes either, but you have to admit that he has a point. People to whom such base urges are natural do exist, and they are not uncommon specimens of our species, even if they are generally outnumbered by the people who are not similarly inclined. In a world where their inclination to base and violent behaviour is unchecked they will take advantage of other, more decent people who are not similarly inclined to such things, and they will make a mess of any system that doesn't have enough power to keep them in awe sufficient to keep their inclinations in check. Even people who aren't as psychopathically wicked as Hobbes' idea of the state of nature can be short-sighted, indifferent, and/or selfish, and these too can make a mess of a society. The deplorable behaviour of some people during this ongoing pandemic attests to this. The selfish actions of a few can have an outsized impact on the many. Never was this more true than it is in our day and age.

The basic solution that arises is thus the same. We make a social contract to trade some of our natural rights to do anything and everything we please to create a Commonwealth that can provide for peace, security, and a means to attain the common good. But as I said, I really diverge with Hobbes on just how much power should be given to the Commonwealth, and on the form in which it should take. But I have to say that the basic principle of a social contract to create a Commonwealth he devised is not an unsound one, and is not a bad starting point as an answer for the purpose of government.

[Lux12]

The only purpose governments exist is to establish and maintain a status quo. Laws and other such things do nothing but maintain power for the privileged. Humans are a social species and not inclined to rampant violence and sociopathy simply because there isn't a dictator/hardcore legalist in a leadership position. These are but fairy tales and boogeymen told to try and keep the masses compliant, toxic memes made to suppress dissent. I've been given little reason over the years to think anything else.