So why do we need a government exactly.

[Fragony]

Universal truth; where the government has the most influence the problems are the worst.

Whatchathinkofit

[Andres]

Because homo homini lupus est.

[Fragony]

Because homo homini lupus est.

Well yes but we can privitise security and they could do it better and cheaper. Company's can do everything better and cheaper, and you know what they have in mind $ makes them less dodgy.

[Geoffrey S]

Uh-huh. And that a significant amount of politicians comes from business isn't enough warning?

A drive for profits would lead to one of two things: one, destruction of expensive bureaucracy and complete lack of oversight; two, a drive for efficiency by quotas and a lot of bureaucracy like in the NHS. Neither what I'd like, personally.

[Fragony]

That wouldn't make sense we are the market, they need us, another company could do it better and cheaper if the market is there. Isn't like the government is catering us. Many company's only one government, I want to know why we need them because when I think about it I can think of none, borders are set and national governments are now ruled by the eu so why am I still giving them 50% of my money. And for the dutchies I very much have Herfkens and Melkert in mind here as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

[KukriKhan]

So why do we need a government exactly.


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

Or at least, that's what we keep saying over here.

[Caerfanan]

Problem is when you think only in terms of needs and profits, too many people are let on the side of the road, 'cause they're not competitive.

I think that a government should be here to provide long term view (not next year's closure to pay the shareholders), and lead global projects. A shoemaker doesn't consider his business in terms of impact on society... Which is natural. Well, someone has to look at alle the picture and think about it.

IMHO, if the "free, liberal, consumer's based market competition" is excellent at taking the best out of "something", through competition and profit-driven optimisation etc, I'll say that the democratic-enough governments are best to set what that "something" should be.

The wolf is the best hunter but smeone should show him which animal chase... Sort of...

For instance, take a government which make laws about environment, even if the very clever and powerfull industries and lobbies struggle against it. After a while the good part of the free market appears: many people fight to have the best and cheapest and cleanest technology to be the one making good profit.

Just in France there's a new "bonus/malus" system when you buy a car based on it's CO2/km emitted: the less emissions, the more money you win. you should see all the car makers now compete to get the lowest emissions possible.

I think also that a government avoids "community-based" actions, which are in my opinion a danger at some point. Look at those "community based" security corps in Irak.... Every community now cloister within itself... Which is d...d dangerous...

[Fragony]

The wolf is the best hunter but smeone should show him which animal chase... Sort of...

But at least you are sure it only acts to serve it's stomach. If a wolf had the type of crew our democracy has it would be extinct. Or turned into a poodle.

edit: all the replies so far is that we need it, wouldn't that mean we don't need it?

[KukriKhan]

Well, yeah, sort of.

The next bit pertains:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

In other words: when you don't like it, change it, or toss it to the curb - whichever The People decide suits them best.

The "need" for government is not absolute IMHO. We put up with it to prevent cheating on the part of our fellow citizens. If everybody acts nice all the time, government is unnecessary.

[Caerfanan]

But at least you are sure it only acts to serve it's stomach. If a wolf had the type of crew our democracy has it would be extinct. Or turned into a poodle.
Yup so the efficient wolf chases efficiently because it only thinks of its stomach (and its she-wolf which is its reward). And it is responsible for making it the best way possible, thanks to its stomach killing it if it does not feed it properly.

And a heavy to build concensus with more wider views is needed to avoid the wolvves from feeding on one another or make disappear their own food because they can't or don't want to see from their place that the flock is extiguishing itself...

Well, this said, I know that in my country the politicians are politicians as a job... Which put some other weights in balance: their carreer.

So I wouldn't say we don't need a govrnment, but that we need to rethink they way we choose to be governed. And not caring about it therefore leaving the room for the bad ones is probably the original sin....


edit: all the replies so far is that we need it, wouldn't that mean we don't need it?
I'm not sure of what you mean there. Something like "if you are so quick about telling it's important it's because you're not sure"? IMHO, I don't trust man-on-himself enough, we need a collective "from above" view. Otherwise people would tend to their own interests. OK, thzat's a bit caricatural: nowadays, in my whereabouts, with information and internet shopping, people tend to pay less attention to their neighbours... Because they don't need them. And so giving time and energy to them is not efficient... And they can concentrate 100% on their "profile" (communities on the web and the like).

[Fragony]

Well, this said, I know that in my country the politicians are politicians as a job... Which put some other weights in balance: their carreer.


Exactly, sounds to me like serving two masters, there is tje job, but there is also the party. So, the wrong people must be on the job. In the end it is something that is holding us down in a pretty much established world.

[Viking]

Universal truth; where the government has the most influence the problems are the worst.

Whatchathinkofit


Without any government there is no one to the blame the problems for, and harder to solv any problems with society in general. Democracy is sort of spooky though, there should've been minimum requirements for a politician; they are controlling no less than a country. Iraqi war anyone?

[Pannonian]

The free market is good at efficiently exploiting resources. It's absolutely abysmal at deciding when it's gone too far. Governments may not be too hot at this either, but at least it should have a set of interests separate from that of the completely liberalised market.

[Caerfanan]

Exactly, sounds to me like serving two masters, there is tje job, but there is also the party. So, the wrong people must be on the job. In the end it is something that is holding us down in a pretty much established world.
Yes, I completely agree with that. But I wouldn't say that the tool is useless because some stupid baboon is making stupid things with it. and on the other hand we now that totally ideologically driven systems tend to concentrate power on a political class...

Hence a thought: instead of making work a "government" by paying some people with money, couldn't we govern by paying with time? Something like a part-time job or something? This could put aside the "carreer" problems, and avoid someone to take too much power?

Then I see some people outside, and wonder "wow, this one shouldn't make any decisions". And then I think about being efficient anyway...

Not an easy one! :laugh4:

[Fragony]

Paying with necesity I think, having-to always makes for the best solutions.

[Caerfanan]

Well the necessity should be the vote. But as a good corporation would do, our loved politician then say what will bring them the greatest amount of votes, not what they really think could be better for their country.Because they're payed when elected. And some good "populistic" (english?) views bring more votes....

Still pretty hard to figure out how play the "game" at its best, unfortunately...