Do we need government?

[Meg]

Mr. Romero gave me a great idea. SO! Let's talk about why we (don't) need government. If we do need it, then what type is best?

 

[Storyofmylife]

Of course we do, or else there would be no order and too much chaos, but in the same breath we don't need them breathing down our necks. I believe everything in moderation is key, same goes with government. Do I think they lie to us? Of course I do... But again, they're a necessary evil. That's my opinion anyway.

 

[La Femme Fatale]

Maybe it's because I have a bachelor degree in political science and hence I'm a bit biased in this regard - but I think 'yes' is the only reasonable answer. The theoretical necessity of a government is to maintain order of the individuals in their given state. Without it, as Story said, we'd have a lawless society - anarchy. If we had no means of creating laws and subsequently enforcing them, then there'd be no such thing as private property, crime would be abundant, etc because there would be no bureaucratic body in existence to keep order. Don't get me wrong, there is a ton of corruption in most, if not all governments, but nonetheless they serve a very important function.

Think of all the services a government provides (or organizes, whatever) - healthcare, education, the justice system, housing, etc etc. I mean, think labour regulations and employment standards, public health and safety, the environment, public roads... these are all very important functions of a healthy society and I don't buy the argument we'd have any of these institutions without a government to create and regulate them.

Corrupted? Of course - power does that to people and the government is composed of people from our own society. But it serves a very necessary function. We have to keep in mind that the government is not just the bunch of rich, entitled white men in Parliament. In Canada's case, the Ministry of Labour, Finance, Natural Resources, Education, Training, Transportation etc... all these bureaucracies are just as much the government as a political party is. It's simply a different facet of it.

And I am partial to a democracy.

 

[KennedyKiller]

Hmm...This depends on how you look at it...

Human...A human does not need to be controlled...Most humans are sane and can think for themselves...Most humans are intelligent and can overcome problems, with or without other humans or higher powers...In most cases this is true at least...

Society...Society NEEDS government...Society is a crowd of people, and crowds are stupid, fearful, and the equivalent of lambs to the slaughter if there is not a voice of reason...A leader(s)...I'm a punk...I go outside the laws and try to show the corruptness of the government...But only when it needs done...Put even as a punk...I understand the NEED for society...

Well...the perfect government in my opinion is TRUE communism...But that's an impossibility...So I prefer Socialism...

 

[La Femme Fatale]

Well...the perfect government in my opinion is TRUE communism...But that's an impossibility...So I prefer Socialism...

Communism and socialism aren't types of governments. They're economic systems. A large facet of the government, sure, but they are adjectives to describe a country's economic principles first and foremost.

You can have capitalist democracies and socialist democracies and capitalist totalitarian regimes and socialist totalitarian regimes. Some combinations are obviously more likely than others. Capitalism/socialism/communism is the economic aspect of a society, but democracies/totalitarian regimes/monarchies are the actual forms of government.

tl;dr - you have to be more specific than just saying 'socialism' when talking about an ideal form of government (I should have been more specific myself as well above just saying 'democracy'). Because you can have a socialist dictatorship and I'm sure no one wants to live in one of those.

 

[KennedyKiller]

Communism and socialism aren't types of governments. They're economic systems. A large facet of the government, sure, but they are adjectives to describe a country's economic principles first and foremost.

You can have capitalist democracies and socialist democracies and capitalist totalitarian regimes and socialist totalitarian regimes. Some combinations are obviously more likely than others. Capitalism/socialism/communism is the economic aspect of a society, but democracies/totalitarian regimes/monarchies are the actual forms of government.

tl;dr - you have to be more specific than just saying 'socialism' when talking about an ideal form of government (I should have been more specific myself as well above just saying 'democracy'). Because you can have a socialist dictatorship and I'm sure no one wants to live in one of those.

My apologies...What I was trying to get at was that government is very much controlled by economy, and I live in a Capitalist Democracy...I'm not a fan of capitalism, so I prefer the socialist side of the economy part...

 

[Pancham Cutie]

I'm going to hae to say yes, we do need a government.

Just like what Adam Jensen said in Deus Ex: Human Revolution...

"Freedom. To those who don't have it, it's more valuable than gold. But where should it start and end? We humans often think we have the right to expand, absorb, convert, or possess anything twe need to reach our dreams. But time and time again, hasen't this led to conflict with others who essentially believe in the same thing? Looking back at the challenges I faced--at the way I often resolved them--I realized that morality can be our saving grace. Most of the time, didn't I try keep my values in mind, knowing how my actions would effect others? More often than not, I resisted the urge to abuse power and resources simply to reach my goals more switftly. I managed to hang on to my humanity--but the temptation to ignore it was always there. It's that temptation that so worries Taggart. He's not afraid of freedom. He's afraid of the chaos that errupts when individuals have nothing but morality to constrain them. He wants us to regulate enhancement technologies, because he fears all that power without limits, without guiderails to keep us from abusing it. Absoulte freedom is no better than chaos. Society needs laws and regulations to protect it. So if the men and women behind Taggart need to work in the shadows, pulling strings to enable us to head in a safe direction, will supporting them be all that bad? If they're as wise as Taggart says, how bad will their leadership be? I just hope they stand by what they say."

In other words, what if there was no government? What if there were no laws? What if all we did was make ourselves better and expanded? What if we were free and could do whatever we want? (Absoulte freedom is no better than chaos. Society needs laws and regulations to protect itself.).

As for the type of government is best, I can't say. I don't know all the types of governments and exactly how they function.

 

[Romero]

Seriously speaking I am of course a supporter of democracy, and I prefer constitutional monarchy because that is our tradition.

I believe in capitalism, but it needs to be regulated. It's not perfect but I believe it's the best system we can have, because individual freedom is crucial for a functioning economical system.

But there are moments when I wish we didn't have any form of government. The alternative don't need to be anarchy, we could be small tribes with a chief. XD

And I am partial to a democrazy.

I like democrazy, but I like it even more when you leave out "demo" and what remains is "crazy".

 

[KennedyKiller]

But there are moments when I wish we didn't have any form of government. The alternative don't need to be anarchy, we could be small tribes with a chief. XD

Isn't that still technically a form of government...A patriarchal government...(Not sure if that's the accurate term, but I'm sure Femme will correct me if I'm wrong lol)...

 

[Romero]

Isn't that still technically a form of government...A patriarchal government...(Not sure if that's the accurate term, but I'm sure Femme will correct me if I'm wrong lol)...

In some sense it might be a government, but I think of a government as something more complicated than that. Something that has grown out of proportions and has too many chiefs wasting all my tax money...

 

[La Femme Fatale]

I believe you'd have to dismantle the state system to adopt a tribal one, no?

I believe in capitalism, but it needs to be regulated. It's not perfect but I believe it's the best system we can have, because individual freedom is crucial for a functioning economical system.

This. I believe capitalism is the only system that really functions effectively for most societies. But, like Romero, it does need to be regulated tightly, and this is where the government comes in by setting minimum wages, outlining employment standards, monitoring health and safety etc etc.

In my opinion though, the most developed capitalist democracies do retain some aspects of socialism. They cannot be purely hegemonic. I still prefer some services - such as healthcare and education - to be universal. The fact that the United States has for-profit prisons and for-profit collages is absolutely mind-boggling to me - I don't think these services should be privatized at all.

 

[KennedyKiller]

In some sense it might be a government, but I think of a government as something more complicated than that. Something that has grown out of proportions and has too many chiefs wasting all my tax money...

I was mostly just joking...But what you said about wasting the tax money...Amen brother...

 

[JMG29]

@KennedyKiller:
"Individuals are okay, but groups suck and need a leader."
1.) Groups are made up of individuals. The best you can do is encourage people to be better individuals.
2.) Yes, mob rule is bad. But isn't the basic idea of Socialism based on mob rule "of the proletariat"? Same goes for direct Democracy.
3.) You believe that humans are flawed, and that's why they need a leader... so, what, you want to find an alien race of super smart altruistic dictators? Or are you subconsciously imagining yourself as the leader of this brave new world and think you can balance the needs of millions of people? If not, and you're perfectly fine with being a follower and not a leader, what if you disagree with the leader and his plans?
I recommend F.A. Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom" for a great critique of central economic planning. For the record, Hayek isn't even that "dogmatic" about laissez-faire capitalism compared to his fellow Austrian economists (like Murray N. Rothbard, even though I do like him.)

I'm not saying I'm an anarchist. I'm just not a statist.

I used to sympathize with the Left (modern American Liberals in particular) until Obama came into power and debunked nearly every reason I thought they were better than the Republicans (anti-corporate bailouts, anti-drug war, anti-war in general, anti-Big Brother/Patriot Act etc. etc.) The fact that Mitt Romney, the godfather of Obamacare, is probably going to win the GOP nomination, is hilarious.

@The Major: I picked the Sariff ending.

 

[Romero]

I still prefer some services - such as healthcare and education - to be universal. The fact that the United States has for-profit prisons and for-profit collages is absolutely mind-boggling to me - I don't think these services should be privatized at all.

I prefer a mix where the state provide for basic healthcare, and private hospitals/doctors exists. In Norway the state can sometimes cover the cost for private healthcare if the state owned healthcare has too long waiting lists. We have large problems with healthcare, the problem is too low capacity in the public system.

Tonight I read in news that some American states abolish death penalty because executing death penalty is too expensive. I thought keeping people imprisoned for life was much more expensive, but apparently not.

Since reinstating the death penalty in 1978, California taxpayers
have spent roughly $4 billion to fund a dysfunctional death penalty
system that has carried out no more than 13 executions.

Source: Loyola Law School (Los Angeles) study.

What the freck!! Executing 13 people cost $4 billion?! I don't know how they do it, but they must be doing it very very wrong. When they first decided to have death penalty, executing one criminal should not need to cost $307,692,300 on average. If I were interested I could do the same for $1,000 and saved the tax payers $3,999,999,000. (I'm not interested.)

Capital punishment is another topic, I just mention this as an example of how terribly ineffective a system can be. I don't think it's the penalty that is the problem; it must be something fundamental that is wrong with the government there. Someone private must be capable of doing it better and cheaper.

 

[KennedyKiller]

@KennedyKiller:
"Individuals are okay, but groups suck and need a leader."
1.) Groups are made up of individuals. The best you can do is encourage people to be better individuals.
2.) Yes, mob rule is bad. But isn't the basic idea of Socialism based on mob rule "of the proletariat"? Same goes for direct Democracy.
3.) You believe that humans are flawed, and that's why they need a leader... so, what, you want to find an alien race of super smart altruistic dictators? Or are you subconsciously imagining yourself as the leader of this brave new world and think you can balance the needs of millions of people? If not, and you're perfectly fine with being a follower and not a leader, what if you disagree with the leader and his plans?
I recommend F.A. Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom" for a great critique of central economic planning. For the record, Hayek isn't even that "dogmatic" about laissez-faire capitalism compared to his fellow Austrian economists (like Murray N. Rothbard, even though I do like him.)

I'm not saying I'm an anarchist. I'm just not a statist.

I used to sympathize with the Left (modern American Liberals in particular) until Obama came into power and debunked nearly every reason I thought they were better than the Republicans (anti-corporate bailouts, anti-drug war, anti-war in general, anti-Big Brother/Patriot Act etc. etc.) The fact that Mitt Romney, the godfather of Obamacare, is probably going to win the GOP nomination, is hilarious.

@The Major: I picked the Sariff ending.

I'll answer this with a four worded sentence...And if I doesn't give you the answer of how I feel about the things you just listed I won't try to explain it...

I am a Machiavellian...

 

[JMG29]

I'm sorry, but I don't get it...

@Romero:
While I do agree that the government can be VERY inefficient... the death penalty costs so much because it's the government taking a human life. There needs to be a fiscal deterrent, or else they would do it more often, increasing the risk of an innocent man getting killed. Even if the chances are .0000001%, it's still too much of a risk.
You might say "but our prisons are overcrowded!"
http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/99-03_REP_OneMillionNonviolentPrisoners_AC.pdf
That's more of an argument to stop the government from protecting people from themselves.

 

[La Femme Fatale]

What the freck!! Executing 13 people cost $4 billion?! I don't know how they do it, but they must be doing it very very wrong. When they first decided to have death penalty, executing one criminal should not need to cost $307,692,300 on average. If I were interested I could do the same for $1,000 and saved the tax payers $3,999,999,000. (I'm not interested.)

Capital punishment is another topic, I just mention this as an example of how terribly ineffective a system can be. I don't think it's the penalty that is the problem; it must be something fundamental that is wrong with the government there. Someone private must be capable of doing it better and cheaper.

Obviously there are issues with the efficiency of the system, yes. But I think you are jumping to the conclusion that these costs are associated with the execution itself and this is not true. This is even explained in the article you linked to yourself.

Most of the cost is absorbed by the legal system. Capital cases cost more from the start because case law mandates that a defendant facing a possible death sentence is entitled to two attorneys rather than one, and more often than not, all avenues are exhausted. It can take ten years for a case to go to the Supreme Court. Most capital defendants are indigent which means these costs are absorbed by the state. Capital defendants are also entitled to representation by relevant experts in their cases (investigators, mitigation specialists, psychologists, etc.), all of which are paid for by the state. Capital trials usually last quite a bit longer than non capital trials - and these cases require two separate trials - one for guilt and the other for punishment. Additionally, and probably more important with regards to driving costs up, there is the appeals process. This is put into place to try to avoid executing an innocent person, but appellate attorneys cost even more than trial attorneys because of their specific expertise. Combine this with the costs of actually holding a person in death row for years during this process, as well as the costs of supervision on high security death row while appeals proceed far outweighs the costs of supervision in general population.

So, it's rather misleading to say the entire process should cost a grand when the costs are attributed more to judicial processes in ensuring that we aren't executing executing innocent people than the actual execution itself. Still, of course $4 billion is ridiculous and yes, the system in California is clearly inefficient. But California seems to be rather extreme compared to say, Kansas, whose average capital punishment case costs about 1.5 million.

tl dr: It isn't really that it costs millions to execute one inmate - it costs hundreds of millions to avoid executing a single innocent person.

 

[Romero]

Obviously there are issues with the efficiency of the system, yes. But I think you are jumping to the conclusion that these costs are associated with the execution itself and this is not true. This is even explained in the article you linked to yourself.

Most of the cost is absorbed by the legal system. Capital cases cost more from the start because case law mandates that a defendant facing a possible death sentence is entitled to two attorneys rather than one, and more often than not, all avenues are exhausted. It can take ten years for a case to go to the Supreme Court. Most capital defendants are indigent which means these costs are absorbed by the state. Capital defendants are also entitled to representation by relevant experts in their cases (investigators, mitigation specialists, psychologists, etc.), all of which are paid for by the state. Capital trials usually last quite a bit longer than non capital trials - and these cases require two separate trials - one for guilt and the other for punishment. Additionally, and probably more important with regards to driving costs up, there is the appeals process. This is put into place to try to avoid executing an innocent person, but appellate attorneys cost even more than trial attorneys because of their specific expertise. Combine this with the costs of actually holding a person in death row for years during this process, as well as the costs of supervision on high security death row while appeals proceed far outweighs the costs of supervision in general population.

So, it's rather misleading to say the entire process should cost a grand when the costs are attributed more to judicial processes in ensuring that we aren't executing executing innocent people than the actual execution itself. Still, of course $4 billion is ridiculous and yes, the system in California is clearly inefficient. But California seems to be rather extreme compared to say, Kansas, whose average capital punishment case costs about 1.5 million.

tl dr: It isn't really that it costs millions to execute one inmate - it costs hundreds of millions to avoid executing a single innocent person.

Perhaps the newspaper got it wrong. The news article I read (that used the study as source) said that inmates on death row was not executed because it cost too much money. When someone has been sentenced to death and is on death row, the trial is over? It should be, all that should remain is to administrate the execution. The news said it was the execution of 13 people, not the trials, that cost $4 billion.

I only took a quick look at the study I linked to in my former post. I didn't read all of it, that's the journalist's job.

 

[La Femme Fatale]

Perhaps the newspaper got it wrong. The news article I read (that used the study as source) said that inmates on death row was not executed because it cost too much money. When someone has been sentenced to death and is on death row, the trial is over?

There is usually an appeals process, as I stated above, that commences at this point. The appeals process is even more costly than the trial for guilt/punishment. You also have certain habeas corpus procedures.

It should be, all that should remain is to administrate the execution. The news said it was the execution of 13 people, not the trials, that cost $4 billion.

I only took a quick look at the study I linked to in my former post. I didn't read all of it, that's the journalist's job.

Most journalists and news outlets are promoting an agenda - and they're not above framing a story in a particular way to suit their interests. I scanned through the article and it was very clear that a large portion of that $4 billion is attributed to legal proceedings.

 

[Hoady]

No. I shall explain:

Government i believe, do not have the ability to solve problems because they don't know anything within the fields of Science,Technology and Human Behaviour.These are really what govern our society and should be focused on. So what do they do? Since they don't know how to solve a problem they put up laws,jails and regulations as a way to try resolve abhorrent behaviour(Violence, social ills etc). They fail to recognize the core social problems prevalent in the world today which can be easily solved if we apply the scientific method. Politcians speak to win approval, Scientists speak to inform about the facts. I'm not saying scientists should be given control, just the forefront of participation in society.

Just jumble this around your head. Scientist says "Hey guys, we can easily feed and clothe everybody in the world" but they go to the government and you know what they say? "Sorry, we don't have enough money for that". The question is not 'money' but 'do we have the resources'? WE DO! The only problem is people first of all aren't well enough aware of our technological capabilities and also enough about what shapes a human being to behave in a certain way.These are the fields politics need to work in.. i guarantee within time politicians would become useless.

Here is an idea. You know those stupid drunk drivers!! How about you put sonar and radar technology in the car so it can't crash? Or give the car the ability to drive by itself when you do get drunk(Yes its out there). There is a pendulum in your car, if you get too drunk and swerve the car pulls you over so you can't drive. Maybe Provide free taxi or train services for people who do get drunk? When i say we can eliminate automobile accidents to virtually ZERO, i am being absolutely serious, the technology is there. And guess what happens? Then there is no need for a law because the problem is solved. Laws are created when someone doesn't know how to resolve a problem so they use punishment as a tool to keep people in line.

Look throughout history. They are always corrupt as hell and tend to manipulate millions of people for there own ends. Even if a politician means well he needs support from his peers and many parties. I can continue but that should do for now.If you got questions fire away.