The Duty of Government

[Slade Wilson]

Individual humans form governments all the time over the last few hundred years and far before that.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Slade Wilson
Individual humans form governments all the time over the last few hundred years and far before that.

Lord.....

I thought I was clear, but obviously not.

The notion that GOVERNMENT as a thing came into existance because people came to gether to form such a thing is nonsense.

now, once you have complex civilizations, governments will come and go. The question posed is whether there is some theoretical duty that any government has. My statement is simple, what government there is is based on the underlying society, and what duties it may be thought to have are also based on the society being ruled.

[Kidlicious]

Re: The Duty of Government

Originally posted by DaShi
heh, heh, duty.

What are the limits of government responsibility? Do they just need to do enough to prevent a revolt (basically to act in such a way to preserve themselves)? Or should governments work to better the lives of the majority of their citizens beyond simple pacification, within reason of course? Or other?

If you want to be specific to a democratic government I think you can safely say that said government should make the majority of the people happy. It should also protect the rights of minorities within reason. Beyond that I don't think it has specific duties.

[Admiral]

Seriously, you can't make any universal statement that government has any specific duties or limitations, aside from serving the interests of those under its rule.

[Zkribbler]

From memory:

We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, that to preserve these rights, governments are instituted among men, that whenever a government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the duty of the people to alter or abolish it.

So, to preserve the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

[Ninot]

I agree with GePap

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by DaShi
Should governments provide credit cards or just Wiglaf?

I see no reason why governments should provide Wiglafs.

[aneeshm]

The fundamental purpose of the state (as embodied by the king) was pretty much fully enumerated by Kautilya. We still haven't really managed to reach that ideal.





Some choice quotes:

In the happiness of his subjects likes the king's happiness; in their welfare his welfare. He shall not consider as good only that which pleases him but treat as beneficial to him whatever pleases his subjects. {1.19.34}

The pursuit of [the people's] welfare as well as the maintenance of philosophic tradition, the Vedas and the economic well-being [of the society] are dependent on the sceptre wielded by the king. The maintenance of law and order by the use of punishment is the science of government. By maintaining order, the king can preserve what is already his, acquire new possessions, augment his wealth and power and share the benefits of improvement with those worthy of such gifts. {1.4.3}

The progress of this world depends on the maintenance of order and the [proper functioning of] government.
Some teachers say: 'Those who seek to maintain order shall always hold ready the threat of punishment. For, there being no better instrument of control than coercion.' Kautilya disagrees for the [following reasons.] A severe king [meting out unjust punishment] is hated by the people he terrorises while one who is too lenient is held in contempt by his own people. Whoever imposes just and deserved punishment is respected and honoured. A well-considered and just punishment makes the people devoted to dharma, artha and kama [righteousness, wealth and enjoyment]. Unjust punishment, whether awarded in greed, anger, or ignorance, excites the fury of even [those who have renounced all worldly attachment like] forest recluses and ascetics, not to speak of householders. When, [conversely,] no punishment is awarded [through misplaced leniency and no law prevails], then there is only the law of fish [i.e., the law of the jungle]. Unprotected, the small fish will be swallowed up by the big fish. In the presence of a king maintaining just law, the weak can resist the powerful. {1.4.5-15}

Only the Rule of Law can guarantee security of life and the welfare of the people. {1.5.2}

[BeBMan]

Are you a monarchist?

[Slade Wilson]

What's wrong with that?

You could call a democratic majority a 'king' too. After all the 51% can do whatever the hell they want

[BeBMan]

Who said it's wrong?

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Slade Wilson

You could call a democratic majority a 'king' too. After all the 51% can do whatever the hell they want

Usually there's that constitution thingy. Well, unless you're a British aggressor (who do that by law somehow - proof of their evilness I'd say)

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by BeBro


Usually there's that constitution thingy. Well, unless you're a British aggressor (who do that by law somehow - proof of their evilness I'd say)

But even they have that Magnet Carter thingie.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Slade Wilson
What's wrong with that?

Because 9/10 the monarch sucks a$$.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by aneeshm
By maintaining order, the king can preserve what is already his, acquire new possessions, augment his wealth and power and share the benefits of improvement with those worthy of such gifts. {1.4.3}

Maybe I don't know enough about hindu civilization to understand this.