What should a community/nation/state (government) provide for citizens?

[henry quirk]

nada

police

courts

military

roads

fire protection

education

limited housing

limited healthcare

retirement insurance

unemployment insurance

universal healthcare

food

housing

clothing

energy


Copy only the items you think should be provided and paste them into your response field.

Explain your choices as little or as much as you like.

[Impenitent]

nada - everyone should be entitled to a big pile of this

police, courts, military - serve the same end, private property rights

-Imp

[henry quirk]

The night watchman: yep.

[gaffo]

nada

police

courts

military

roads

fire protection

education

limited housing

limited healthcare

retirement insurance

unemployment insurance

universal healthcare

food

housing

clothing

energy


Copy only the items you think should be provided and paste them into your response field.

Explain your choices as little or as much as you like.

police

courts

military

roads

fire protection

education

unemployment insurance

universal healthcare


the above.


but would welcome removing near all of them above for a government that served "The People" (as it did 40 yrs ago) - rather than being bought out and now only serving Transnational corporatations.

ya Citizens United! Corporations are people too!!!!!

remove Net Neutrality too - Shit Pie's master Verizon (i widdle person too") mandates it.

lets seal the deal and affirm Kavenaugh so we can have a Presidental King for life above the law!

amen pleabs.

[-1-]

What should a community/nation/state (government) provide for citizens?

Whatever their god does not provide.

[Charm]

In a word; Good should be provided by government.. Aristotle said Governments are created with the object of Good based upon the conclusion that good is the object of all human activity.. In fact, Government is a form, and every form is a form of relationship, and no one gets into, or stays in a relationship in which good is not forthcoming.. In our age, the good, which is the possibility of happiness- is exclusive to all but a few, but people suffer the fear of replacing the unhappiness they suffer with some horror more dire..

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

I don't think my government should provide much of anything for its citizens, other than a protection of their rights. Out of the categories you give, I would say:

police

courts

military

fire protection

(maybe) roads

There are other things but they're dependent on the circumstances. For example, a lot of these countries with socialized healthcare do have a better system than we currently do, but it seems like the american healthcare system of the 1920-1940s was even better. I think someone can make a case that other things should be supplied when it comes down to only a few bad choices.

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

In a word; Good should be provided by government.. Aristotle said Governments are created with the object of Good based upon the conclusion that good is the object of all human activity.. In fact, Government is a form, and every form is a form of relationship, and no one gets into, or stays in a relationship in which good is not forthcoming.. In our age, the good, which is the possibility of happiness- is exclusive to all but a few, but people suffer the fear of replacing the unhappiness they suffer with some horror more dire..

Thing is though, some things are good at first but have long-term consequences. Like a government artificially pumping money into their own economy.

[henry quirk]

Yeah, okay.

Here's your problem: some folks see the 'good' that may extend out of gov as all-encompassing (let's call these folks communitarians). Other folks see the 'good' that may extend out of gov as minimal (let's call these folks libertarians).

Bridge the gap between these two.

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

Yeah, okay.

Here's your problem: some folks see the 'good' that may extend out of gov as all-encompassing (let's call these folks communitarians). Other folks see the 'good' that may extend out of gov as minimal (let's call these folks libertarians).

Bridge the gap between these two.

Well I think he means the actual good. While there are the libertarians and the socialists of the world, the views are usually held in mind of what would make a better society, at least in some sense. Like there are very few small-government ideologues who hold the view out of pure selfishness, they typically want a smaller government because they believe it's the view which will produce the best overall results.

We all want to live in a happy place, we just can't agree on how to get there.

[Charm]

The good which everyone should be able to expect from every form of government, and in fact, every form of relationship, is that it supports the rights of everyone, and makes possible the happiness of everyone.. Rights are necessary for life, and life as the meaning of meanings is the goal, and the very things, powers, necessities that make life possible.. But as life, and all that is necessary is not enough without happiness which makes life worth living.. The state, the society, the community should consider happiness as equal to a right for a physical condition, as a spiritual condition, essential to all people.. If they can help others reach their happiness, then fine, but they, the state, should not be an impediment to the happiness of others.. If the sate disagrees with what makes people happy, they can try to limit happiness, but only with the consent of all the people.. If what makes me happy causes you no upset, outrage, indignity, or pain, then stand back and watch.. There should be a good reason to deny people their happiness, and judging from the amount of unhappiness I would have to say that the state has a large and very good reason for spreading misery...Or why do it???

[henry quirk]

Here's the conundrum (for you, not *me)...

Some folks see the 'good' that may extend out of gov as all-encompassing (let's call these folks communitarians). Other folks see the 'good' that may extend out of gov as minimal (let's call these folks libertarians).

Bridge the gap between these two.









*I see very little 'good' comin' out of government and my happiness is my business and no one else's

[Greta]

It depends on whether you want to live in a civilised society or one where you need strong security systems and to keep a gun by your side at all times.

There are countries that provide almost nada, such as Papua. It is more dangerous than Somalia, which also has almost no government support services.

If people are left destitute they do not all conveniently lie down to die. Rather, many struggle to survive with breakins, shoplifting, muggings and kidnapping. The more people you leave out of society, the more saboteurs you create. The more people who are left out, the more daring the saboteurs become, bolstered by the others.

Then, finally, when the chaos becomes too great there will be a government crackdown requiring military control, and there lies the final natural state of a society that provides no care or welfare. However, if welfare systems are too lax then cycles of poverty are encouraged, and permanent toxic underclasses.

So it's not a matter of what services are needed but to what extent each is needed for a given society at a given time. Ideology must always fail in this because these steering controls must be regularly tweaked to adapt to changing circumstances; the capacity to adapt will be increasingly important now with such rapid changes.

[Charm]

Yeah, okay.

Here's your problem: some folks see the 'good' that may extend out of gov as all-encompassing (let's call these folks communitarians). Other folks see the 'good' that may extend out of gov as minimal (let's call these folks libertarians).

Bridge the gap between these two.

Here is your problem.. All forms including moral forms, like Good, are abstractions.. Of physical forms, forms in the physical world, physics, are beings with meanings.. All moral forms, what some call transcendent concepts are meanings only.. Your problem is that as a living being, you conceive of your self spiritually, and morally; but you have a physical as well as a spiritual being, so that the goods you need are in majority physical and material; but as you conceive of yourself spiritually, you also need the good that feeds that spiritual sense of self..
I will remind you of Identity and conservation.. I understand the problem of defining moral forms which are infinites, and yet, as A is A, so is Good, Good... How ever others may see or understand Good, it is your job as a philosopher to define Good for all people... Since you cannot define an infinite, what then can you say of Good that all definitions have in common.. Good is not an abstraction, but to each real person is a reality.. Good, like Beauty, -another form of Good- is in the eye of the beholder.. Good is good to people..

[henry quirk]

I'm not a philosopher.

Other folks can define it for themselves.

Me: I take care of me.

Still waitin' to see how the gap between communitarians and libertarians can be closed.