What do you believe the government's role is?

[Curious George]

About 5,500 years ago on the plains of what is now Southern Iraq, the Sumerian people invented the class society. We don't know why or how they did it other than the likelihood some people saw a chance to seize power and took it -- and that religion most likely played a role in the creation.

Here's what made a class society possible, though: Agriculture. Agriculture produces a surplus of food, unlike hunting/gathering. That means it becomes possible for a few people to live off the surplus without actually working in the fields themselves. Agriculture had been invented by the time the first class societies arose.

Once you have a food surplus, all you need is a few ambitious people to see the potential of it, then for them to figure out some way to get everyone else to go along with making them leisured kings, priests, and nobles. But how do you do that?

Near as anyone knows, it might have been done largely through an alliance of priests and leaders. The priests would have put out the word that the gods wanted the leaders to be kings and nobles. That is, wanted the leaders to be made permanent leaders with real power over others. Once the priests had convinced enough people of this new "truth", the leaders could rise up to become kings and nobles.

You see the same nonsense today when some preacher blesses the president or declares that God wants him to be president.



There's a huge library of information about classless hunting/gathering groups. I think you can find a lot of it online.

As for how such groups work, the have leaders, but the leaders have no real power to compel people to obey them. They only have their own authority as wise or competent individuals.

So, for instance, if Smith is the leader of a classless hunting/gathering group, people follow him -- to whatever extent they do -- because they think he's smart, wise, and competent, but not because he has a police force and army to force them to follow him -- because he doesn't.

In practice, Smith would be most likely to leave major decisions up to a vote of the people. That is, rather than make a decision himself, then try to convince everyone to go along with it, Smith would be most likely to ask everyone what they wanted to do, then throw in his weight with the majority. That's how it tends to work in today's few remaining hunting/gathering groups.

I can't help but think that such speculation is romanticizing the 'noble savage.'

What we can see is that larger groups had advantages. From protection to technology. This is why we see larger societies forming independent of each other. Perhaps class is a inevitable element of these larger societies or perhaps it is a side effect we have not been able to mitigate. I am not certain that we can conclude that smaller groupings did not have their own classes. I am also nit certain we can conclude that smaller or larger societies will be more or less egalitarian.

 

[Quintessence]

At a base level, governments are simply extensions of existing social contracts that facilitate interactions between persons (both human and non-human). There seem to be two big components of that: behavioral and structural.

Behavioral contracts are things like standard operating procedures or laws that govern how various people are to treat each other. A government serves to standardize these procedures or laws and apply/enforce them in the agreed upon fashion to those under the social contract. One of the most basic examples of a behavioral contract is reciprocity. I'd wager most laws revolve around reciprocity in some fashion.

Structural contracts are the commons, or tangible resources utilized by a large number of persons in an area for vital needs and sometimes also non-vital needs. A government serves to ensure vital needs are provided for those under its auspices and often regulates use of the commons for non-vital needs. Providing clean drinking water is one example of something governed by structural contracts.

In a world were humans are overpopulated, governments that regulate both of these are virtually mandatory. People rub elbows constantly and inevitably, making contracts equally inevitable and necessary.

 

[Shad]

Is there an overarching role that government should play?

Defense, administration of justice and protection of public goods such as infrastructure.

With what activities should the government be involved?

As per the above the creation of a military, creation of a justice system and creation/maintenance of infrastructure. Anything else I am willing to discuss.

In what areas should the government be limited?

Anything which is not one of the 3 I listed above. How limited and subject is open to discussion.

Are there any general rules by which we can balance government action in order to determine whether an activity is something in which the government should or shpuld not be involved? If so, what are those rules?

Separation of powers. The rest is in the hands of the voters which has little issue electing corrupt politicians day in and day out.

How do you imagine your preferred style of governance working?

My idea could work fine as far as government goes.

 

[Sunstone]

I can't help but think that such speculation is romanticizing the 'noble savage.'

What we can see is that larger groups had advantages. From protection to technology. This is why we see larger societies forming independent of each other. Perhaps class is a inevitable element of these larger societies or perhaps it is a side effect we have not been able to mitigate. I am not certain that we can conclude that smaller groupings did not have their own classes. I am also nit certain we can conclude that smaller or larger societies will be more or less egalitarian.

Just out of curiosity, how well read do you consider yourself on hunting/gathering groups and/or ancient Sumer?

 

[Curious George]

Just out of curiosity, how well read do you consider yourself on hunting/gathering groups and/or ancient Sumer?

I do not consider myself extremely well read on the topic.

 

[Sunstone]

I do not consider myself extremely well read on the topic.

I'm no expert on the subjects myself. But I have long had a passionate interest in both ancient Sumer and hunting/gathering groups. Not that I know anything, just what I've read. Never been on an archeology dig myself.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

To provide for the nation in terms of social programs, to defend the nation, to regulate the economy and protect the nation from being taken advantage of, ensure national unity and muster the resources of the nation to pursue various aims. I'm more of an authoritarian and believe in a strong central government. I actually really like the sort of society they have in Starship Troopers, a sort of revised Fascism.

 

[exchemist]

Is there an overarching role that government should play?

With what activities should the government be involved?

In what areas should the government be limited?

Are there any general rules by which we can balance government action in order to determine whether an activity is something in which the government should or shpuld not be involved? If so, what are those rules?

How do you imagine your preferred style of governance working?

Yes there is: to provide a stable framework for regulating society, for the good of all its members. In practice this involves a number of areas:

- organising defence against external threats,
- providing citizens with a degree of safety when going about their normal activities, by setting out and enforcing laws to regulate the behaviour of individuals and groups,
- ensuring property rights are respected,
- providing communal services that individuals or groups cannot effectively provide (e.g. utilities, education, transport infrastructure)
- regulating activities that can cause damage or undesirable effects.

As for limits, I think the test should be whether or not private enterprise can provide the good or service as effectively and fairly to all citizens. If not them government should take it on, otherwise, not. (Some experimentation may be required to test the alternatives from time to time.)

 

[Curious George]

To provide for the nation in terms of social programs, to defend the nation, to regulate the economy and protect the nation being taken advantage of, ensure national unity and muster the resources of the nation to pursue various aims. I'm more of an authoritarian and believe in a strong central government. I actually really like the sort of society they have in Starship Troopers, a sort of revised Fascism.

No limits toward these ends?

 

[Curious George]

As for limits, I think the test should be whether or not private enterprise can provide the good or service as effectively and fairly to all citizens. If not them government should take it on, otherwise, not.

I understand effectively in this concept, but "fairly" seems rather vague. Could you nail that down a bit more or provide an example?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

No limits toward these ends?

Not really, no. I certainly believe that people are entitled to their private affairs and downtime, though. What you do behind closed doors is your business.

 

[Curious George]

Not really, no. I certainly believe that people are entitled to their private affairs and downtime, though. What you do behind closed doors is your business.

So killing civillians for speech is not out of bounds, if it is done in pursuit of the goals you outlined?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

So killing civillians for speech is not out of bounds, if it is done in pursuit of the goals you outlined?

It would depend on the speech. If they're inciting treason or sedition, that would be within the boundaries of defending the nation.

 

[Curious George]

It would depend on the speech. If they're inciting treason or sedition, that would be within the boundaries of defending the nation.

But if the government just found the speech to be weakening the nation and making the nation more vulnerable?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

But if the government just found the speech to be weakening the nation and making the nation more vulnerable?

That's too vague.

 

[exchemist]

I understand effectively in this concept, but "fairly" seems rather vague. Could you nail that down a bit more or provide an example?

Difficult. In a democracy the sense of what is fair has to be some sort of social consensus, but that can vary from society to society, depending on its culture, history and values. A private water company for instance will expect to make a profit, but what level of profit is considered fair is something government would have to gauge from public reaction - or lack of it.

And then the question of what social safety net government should offer to those who cannot fend for themselves is another vexed question. In the US it seems people view those who cannot manage as the architects of their own misfortune and are happy for them to suffer for it, while in Europe, perhaps due to the history we have of aristocrats exploiting the peasants and then the exploitation of factory workers in the industrial revolution, there is more guilt about the very poor and more of a consensus that they should be helped by government.

But it is the job of government to weight these things up, bearing in mind the attitudes of their citizenry and apply measures that can command a degree of support.

 

[Curious George]

That's too vague.

That's good, because I was over here thinking that was too hardcore.

I am wondering how and where you see the line. Is there anyway you van elaborate more?

 

[Nous]

The controversy about that is described here: Corporate personhood - Wikipedia

And even though Citizen's United did not reference corporate personhood directly, to me it did indirectly.

And famously, Mitt Romney echoed that which I think is really the defacto Republican belief “Corporations are people, my friend”.

To me, Citizens United is a classic example of a conservative activist court legislating from the bench. Those who claim to go by the text had no problem with doing exactly what they complain about liberals doing: departing from the text when it suits their political beliefs.

As the Wikipedia article notes, the Dictionary Act defines "person" as including corporations and other words denoting businesses and associations of individuals. Should a human lose his/her rights by forming a corporation of him/herself, or joins in an association of other individuals?

As you and the article seem to be aware, the holding of Citizens United did not hinge on calling corporations "persons". So what difference has it ever made to refer to corporations as "person"? Some state statutes include political subdivisions under the term "person".

 

[Sammaiel]

Governments are nothing more than a refined ( more or less ) expression of the only Law that truly exists: Might Makes Right.

 

[Woberts]

Unlike you, I would imagine, I think that the government serves as a temporary substitute for Jehovah God's kingdom, which will come when the current system is destroyed, but until then, your solution as mentioned above is what is needed for the best of that temporary system.

What it would take, more than anything, is the removal of the current debt based economy. Money is obsolete. Science and technology can't provide what our creator can, but they could do a great deal better than the current system if they were allowed by this removal of the debt based economy.

We (mostly) agree on something?