Talk:Purpose of government
The foundation of our American Government, its purpose, form and structure are found in the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution, written in 1787, is the "supreme law of the land" because no law may be passed that contradicts its principles. No person or government is exempt from following it.
The Constitution establishes a federal democratic republic form of government. That is, we have an indivisible union of 50 sovereign States. It is a democracy because people govern themselves. It is representative because people choose elected officials by free and secret ballot. It is a republic because the Government derives its power from the people.
The purpose of our Federal Government, as found in the Preamble of the Constitution, is to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity." In order to achieve this purpose the Founding Fathers established three main principles on which our Government is based:
Inherent rights: Rights that anyone living in America has; Self Government: Government by the people; and Separation of Powers: Branches of government with different powers.
https://clyburn.house.gov/fun-youth/us-government
REMOVED ANARTCHIST COOKBOOK VIEW ON PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT AND RESTORED CONSTITUTIONAL IMPERITIVE AS AUTHOR User:Mihnea Tudoreanu|Mihnea Tudoreanu "VANISHED":--SmaugDrakos (talk) 22:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Quibble: Socialism doesn't refer to a level of government control, merely to a level of economic equality. It would be difficult to say all fascist governments are socialist. And on the other hand, anarchism is sometimes libertarian socialism. I would fix this but I don't know the actual term...maybe despotism suffices, but it has a lot of connotations associated therewith.
The traditional (academic) definition of 'socialism' has it that the state ought to own all the means of muff production. (Ordinary folks in the United States think this is what 'communism' means, but 'communism' refers to the final, ideal socialist state, one of anarchy, in which the state has withered away and SocialEquality, or whatever you'd like to call it has been achieved. Remember, it used to be the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. 'Socialist' was not a euphemism.) The word expressing total economic equality, I suppose, is social equality or equality of outcome (as opposed to equality of opportunity). The word for the view that we ought to achieve social equality is egalitarianism. -- Larry Sanger
- The term "Socialism" either means an economic system, or an ideology which supports such an economic system. In any case, it is certainly NOT a system of government (socialist economics may be accompanied by a variety of governments). As for what exactly the socialist economy should consist of, that depends on which school of socialist thought you want to talk about. In general, socialism entails some form of communal, collective or public ownership over the means of production. This includes, but is not limited to, state ownership. Furthermore, "state ownership over the means of production" alone is not socialism, just like "private property over the means of production" alone is not capitalism. If we go by this dichotomy alone, then every economic system in the history of the world can be identified as either "socialist" or "capitalist" (or a combination of the two), which is obviously false. You can have private ownership without capitalism and state ownership without socialism. Read the articles on capitalism and socialism for more details. Also, keep in mind that what you said is true for the Marxist version of socialism, but there are other versions as well.
- - Mihnea Tudoreanu
Well, ok, strictly speaking socialism doesn't refer to the equality but to whatever system that equality exists within. State control, though, is not at all implied. Conversely, government control doesn't imply socialism - consider most traditional fascists and tyrannies.
Anarchists have had no qualms describing themselves as socialists. As for academics ... standard class warfare analysis has workers associated with Anarchism, the rich with fascism and the academics with Stalinism. This shows that the academic definition is wrong and also shows why it would be so wrong. Finally, the soviets in the Union of Soviets were originally conceived as anarchic. They didn't stay that way for long under the Bolsheviks but that's another matter.
In order to define right versus left or socialist versus anything, one must discern a meaningful difference betwee Fascism and Stalinism. Authoritarianism and justice are not it. The only difference I observe is in Stalinism's acknowledgement that the social good derives from individual good and not vice versa, that egalitarianism and freedom are to be desired. -- RichardKulisz
- The distinction is simple: Stalinism paid lip service to social equality and egalitarianism in general (as well as democracy and people's rule), whereas Fascism praised social darwinism, inequality, and hierarchy. Of course, in practice, Stalinism was full of inequality and hierarchy too, which is a good argument for considering it to be firmly non-socialist.
- - Mihnea Tudoreanu
I think it fairly obvious that the differences between Stalinism and Fascism are relatively minor points of emphasis and justification. I also think this points out the inherent conceptual confusion involved in attempting to lay everything out on a single left-to-right spectrum. If Fascism is far to the right, and Stalinism is far to the left, and if both amount in practice to pretty much the same thing... then... --Jimbo Wales
- ...then one of them is not what it pretends to be. The Far Left (Communism and some forms of Socialism) is indeed very much the opposite of the Far Right (Fascism in all its forms). However, Stalinism was clearly not the opposite of Fascism; in fact, they had a lot in common. Hmmmm... now what does that tell us?
- - Mihnea Tudoreanu
Stalinism and Fascism have a lot of similarities thanks to both being totalitarian governments, but that doesn't mean one should overlook their differences. Stalinists promised a worker's utopia and go on the left, Fascists promised a good police state and go on the right. Other axes are usually added to reflect their commonalities, but that doesn't mean we get to ignore the coordinate difference on the one we have! If you do, you shouldn't expect to get a meaningfully discerning system. -- JoshuaGrosse
I am waiting for one of you know-it-alls to supply a better definition. Nothing's stopping you. -- Larry Sanger
Credit where credit's due, those weren't first espoused in the U.S. Constitution, they were espoused by John Locke. A quote from the original and a link to an article about him would be appropriate, I think.
Some other good philosophers to look at and include are: Plato, Aristotle(?), Marx, Kant(did he write anything about actual governments?), and that comment that starts out, "If men were angels..."
- I agree with this. Obviously, we need to give a lot more details about different views about the purpose of government. Please don't just give one view, though. --LMS
Mike, your rewriting of this article, so that it highlights the U.S. Constitution, was not an improvement. It states nothing useful, from a philosophical point of view, though admittedly it might be useful to Americans who want to help educate others in American civic virtues. --LMS
- While John Locke may be the original source, you did not quote him, nor was there a historical reference in your text. While I agree that it adds nothing philosophically, I feel that the U.S. Constitution is the first very well known example from which to base the argument. I agree that it may be highly U.S. centered, but many other constitutions around the world have used it as a source. --Mike Dill
- I see, but John Locke was not my original source; I was doing my best to state some generalities about the purpose of government, not enunciate a Lockean theory of the purpose of government. --LMS
This article seems very much centered on political theory. What about mention of economic arguments? Libertarians often argue that a minimal state would be better for the economy, and anarcho-capitalists argue for no state, while many economists argue that government regulation is necessary to deal with market failures, i.e. government is needed because there are some things the government does more efficently than private enterprise. -- Simon J Kissane
Ironically, the ideal of workers ownership of the means of production, which forms the basis for many concepts of socialism (not Leninism or any of its brands, which emphasize ownership by a Vanguard Party), is similar in character to many of the ideas put foward by the classical liberals. For example, if you listen say to Locke on property, he says in one place, what a man makes with hands, is naturally his property. And in his time, that was probably in many cases a pretty logical definition. Think about how that would apply to an industrial factory. Now an industrial factory is a complex apparatus and there are many jobs to be done: but the logical application of this kind of ideas, is that every man contributing a full time job to the operation of the factory should accordingly share an equal share of the benefits. The benefits should not go to a master who possesses total power over the people who actually produce the goods. Alex Sheppard
The articles The purpose of government and The justification of the state are both pieces of User:Larrys Text. The justification of the state says: "Notice I am using the words "state" and "government" interchangeably here." Therefore I suggest to merge the two into one article, since the (one and the same) author claims they are in essense about the same (unless seomeone wants to split hairs state/govt and purpose/justfn). Mikkalai 01:04, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
There was a hopeless paragraph that I edited out of the article completely. I thought I should explain my actions, so here's the paragraph, with my explanation below:
- One fairly useful way to conceive of the differences between these different views is as how much they want government to do. For a stark and timely contrast, consider two of these views: libertarianism, which wants the state to do only a few things, and socialism (except for anarchism), which wants the state to do a lot of things (but only as a transition to communism by some definitions of socialism). Libertarianism, in political theory, is the view that the function of the state is only to keep people from harming each other. In other words, individuals should be free to do anything they want, so long as they do not infringe upon the equal rights of others to do what they want. The government's role is to protect those rights. Socialism, nearly on the other end of a continuum, is the view that the state is responsible for an equitable distribution of wealth and for controlling the means of production and distribution of resources in an economy.
First of all, "how much" the government should do is not a useful way to conceive of the differences between those views at all, because it completely ignores the issue of WHAT the government should do. A government that breaks up strikes, executes union leaders, implements a regressive tax, and gives enourmous benefits to the wealthy is not at all the same as a government that provides a free education and healthcare for all, and implements a strong social safety net coupled with progressive taxation.
Second of all, since the author's view of "socialism" is absurdly distant from reality (see the article on socialism), the whole example in that paragraph is quite worthless.
Third of all, what are the "equal rights of others"? Most ideologies (including socialism) want a government that leaves individuals free to do anything they want, so long as they do not infringe upon the equal rights of others. They just have widely different views on what exactly those rights actually are.
And with that... I rest my case. - Mihnea Tudoreanu
The real purpose of government[edit]
What is the purpose of a government? I believe it is but not limited to provide the best life possible to its people and it should be done in a manner that provides equality and justice, not favoring any class of society. All other ideas such as freedom, rights, laws, order, and any other matter concerning how the government is run is all aimed to conceive its main objective which is the well-being of society. Laws are made to keep order. Rights are made to conserve freedom. Both are equally necessary and should be balanced to guarantee freedom and equality. Freedom is excellent. The only part of it that goes wrong is when it is used at the expense of someone else’s freedom. That is why laws are required. Laws’ purpose in the well being of society is what keeps equality and justice. Laws are not made to invade freedom, but to guarantee that the freedom of one does not invade the freedom of another. If both laws and rights are made to suit their purpose, then society will rise as a whole, as opposed to having different levels of society.
- Individuals are ends and not merely means; they may not be sacrificed or used for the achieving of other ends without their consent. Individuals are inviolable and they possess rights to life, liberty, and property, and these rights may not be sacrificed in the name of welfare, equality, or any other alleged social value.
Removed US Constitution part[edit]
merger[edit]
- Support As both articles discuss the same thing, this article can be included as "Purpose of government" in "Justification for the state". Foant 12:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support merger as well, preferably into "Justification for the state" because the use of government here is misleading (governance? governing? a specific government?) - "state" avoids some of those problems. Nicolasdz 16:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)