Why have government?

Answer 1

Why don't you go live in a poor place in Africa run by anarchy and see why government is good?

Answer 2

There are so many different reasons for this;

Philosophers have thought that we are bound together due to mutual weaknesses and protection. In any society groups will naturally form with the aim of protecting those within it.

Land and property needed to be protected. This is another reason. Once people started accumulating, they needed a system of rules regulation and protection which would allow them to keep what they have worked hard for.

The government is the closest thing in this country that we can get to being a democracy. Several different types of governing have been attempted. From the rule of one individual to a group rule, and philosophers have debated the merits of each and every form. A government here is meant to be neutral and accountable to each one of the electorate. They are meant to be our true representation.

In principle however, the only way to get complete civil participation and democracy would be to put a public vote out for every decision that is made. In practice we are not a true democracy, and government is often not a representation of our views. Our voting system means that a government can be elected with a disproportionately high share of seats in the House of Commons without actually getting a proper share of the votes. A true democracy with fair government would be one elected by proportional representation, where (in theory) a political party that got 51% of the vote would achieve 51% of the seats. Though this would be much more unstable (just look at Italy!!)

So basically we have the government that we currently have, because it is the simplest answer to the complex problems of protection and participation. Whether it works or not is another story!

Answer 3

In any community, there must be someone in charge in order to protect the public interest. A city must have a mayor; a state must have a governor; and a country must have a government; and a government must have a president. Without a government, we will all be fighting for our own benefits. There will be no peace in our country.

Answer 4

Here's how we save the planet.........in my opinion. By the way, it would be nice to see more use of that. I too often hear this is this way, and that is so. I think we'd all communicate a bit better if we didn't state opinions as fact. Little tip for the media too!

Ever have that feeling that things in politics and the world in general are too big to face of comprehend? "What can I, one person do about it?" you ask.

For many years I believed we just had to get everyone on the same page and popular opinion could force the hand of govt. I essentially believe we all want the same things, whether labour, conservative, liberal whoever. Let's be realistic. Do conservatives WANT bad schools? Do liberals WANT bad healthcare? Come on, let's be logical.

But getting everyone on the same page is tough. Looking from a different angle, how about if the power was not so distant. Not hundreds of politicians who can never be held accountable.

We need local power. Let's just say, all the power was controlled at the town level: e.g. taxes, transport, health etc. How much easier would it be to organise a march, or petition against that power stronghold. A lot, I can tell you. How empowering would it feel to be able to control the things that affect you? I personally would love it.

What cost? - Well, we would lose governmental policies & programmes. No more national defence, health care eetc. In a nutshell, I don't think national Govts are efficient or work well for society. Yes we have unity, but the system can never work. It's impossible to run efficiently healthcare, or schools for an entire nation of 60m. I think it would be more efficient run locally, my opinion. No-one can prove me wrong cos it's never been tried.

How do we do it? So long as 95% of people have a roof, a TV, clothes & food people will never overthrow the Govt. People are satisfied for the most part. And there is no desire or need to overthrow it.
It's simple: Look after your own backyard, KISS, and keep it local.

Look after your own backyard: Unfortunately family units no longer stick together. Sticking together should no longer be something scorned upon. It is not right that so many older vunerable people live on thier own. Or what about people turned to drugs, crime, poverty etc. It means we should do our best to look after those in our community, & not rely on the Govt. Again, social security does not do the job it should on a national level.

KISS: Keep it simple stupid. Let's try and simplify our lives. The more gadgets we have, the more we work, feel more tired, get more sick........in my opinion.

Keep it local: Support your local 'INDEPENDENT' retailer. Power & influence in capitalist economies comes from money. Dudes, everything I mentioned requires a long, long process. You either believe in this path or you don't, and if you do then you're in it for the long haul. So, should poor people who honestly can't afford to shop elsewhere in the short term other than TESCO's? No. But most of us can. TESCO's and other large corporations heavily influence govt. We should be influencing Govt, not them. They don't have our interests at heart. Want a capitalist economy, yeah fine. But don't let it be bias by corporate interests.
Supporting the local baker, butcher, etc takes money away from TESCO, and thus power.
Think of the power you have over a local butcher. If you don't like what the butcher does you go elsewhere & he loses a significantly larger chunk of his business per year than TESCO. TESCO don't care if you ever shop there again in your life.
Incidently, is a large store cheaper? Only occasionally. Go into a local DIY shop, and then go to Homebase, and look at the price difference. The big stores lure you in with "loss leaders"- underpricing products to lure you in. Then the convenience factor kicks in & you buy everything there. But I guarentee a lot of it is more expensive - price is driven by demand. I have experienced it many times........especially organic. I buy organic, but I would rather not buy it if my only choice is TESCO's. Half the stuff isn't even organic (several documentries have highlighted this). They're ripping you off. So eventually all the local business die off, and you're left with very bad service & quality stores.
So you have a family & job, and you don't have much time. Some people have no choice but to shop in Sainsbury's or TESCO's (incidently, they're all as bad). But I believe most of us do if we prioritise & really care. Could go shopping for more jeans or shirts on Sat, which I don't need. Or could spend the time shopping locally. Once you have a routine setup of where to go, it's easy as pie, but requires that initial effort.


Technology can never solve our problems as humans. Govt can't do it either. It is us, the laymen.

So in summary, No we don't need govt, I think it is detrimental. I honestly believe we would all be richer, yes richer, if we had local control instead of allowing the Govt & big business to waste away our taxes.

Answer 5

Because we're not all communists...

Governments are what run countries... what make your bus stops, your national heath (if your fortunately to have a government funded health care) social services, refuse collection.. etc etc etc...

In short without government, we'd be open to such exploitation

'We must bind ourselves with the shackles of goverment for the truest freedom we can hope to feel'

Answer 6

Some poli-sci kids are going to post to this and kick my butt, but I think it's the idea based on the social contract. We were born into it, so it's not quite the same, but the idea is that we give up certain things (money for taxes, a promise to follow the law) to a higher power that is supposed to protect us from nature, from enemies, etc.

Answer 7

It is said we have a government because it makes the peasants feel important.
George Orwell summed it up;
Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectful and to give the appearance of solidarity to pure wind.

Answer 8

Without it, you would soon find how un-civilised we still are. A bad government in control is better than a good one out of control.

Answer 9

A government is a body that has the authority to make and the power to enforce laws within a civil, corporate, religious, academic, or other organization or group. In its broadest sense, "to govern" means to administer or supervise, whether over a state, a set group of people, or a collection of assets.

The word government is ultimately derived from the Greek κυβερνᾶν (kybernan), which means "to steer".

Typically, "the government" refers to the executive function. In many countries (particularly those having parliamentary systems), the government refers to the executive branch of government or a specifically named executive, such as the Blair government (compare to the administration as in the Bush administration in U.S. usage). In countries using the Westminster system, the party in government will also usually control the legislature.
The "Welsh Assembly Government" is the name of the executive branch of Wales, and "Scottish government" is the unofficial term to describe the Scottish Executive.

In political theory, government is understood as having three main powers: legislative (the power to make laws), executive (the power to implement laws) and judiciary (the power to judge and apply punishment when laws are broken). It is normally assumed, at least in democracies, that nomination and election resides with the citizens. But even in a democracy such as in the U.S., the President nominates Supreme Court Justices and the Senate confirms (elects) them. Also in the case of electing the President, the citizens do not elect the President. They elect "electors" who in turn elect the President. In the Parliamentary system, Parliament nominates and elects the Prime Minister. Miguel DeGuzman and John Thoburn discovered that the the powers to nominate and elect must be included as distinct powers.
Under traditional forms of government that ruled most of the world until a few centuries ago, such as monarchy and oligarchy, these powers were concentrated in the hands of one person or a small group of people. One of the innovations of modern democracy is the separation of powers into three distinct branches of government that operate independently while acting as checks and balances for each other. This separation is supposed to prevent any one individual or small group from acquiring too much power for themselves and becoming despotic.

Force Theory
Many political philosophies that are opposed to the existence of a government (such as Anarchism, and to a lesser extent Marxism), as well as others, emphasize the historical roots of governments - the fact that governments, along with private property, originated from the authority of warlords and petty despots who took, by force, certain patches of land as their own (and began exercising authority over the people living on that land). Thus, it is argued that governments exist to enforce the will of the strong and oppress the weak, maintaining and protecting the privilege of a ruling class. Mainstream anarchism argues that government primarily interferes to protect property rights, while Anarcho-capitalism argues that government primarily violates property rights. Other minority ideologies in anarchism such as Anarcho-primitivism argues against domestication, while Black anarchism and Anarcha-feminism argue that the ruling class is whites and men, respectively.

Order and tradition

The various forms of conservatism, by contrast, generally see the government as a positive force that brings order out of chaos, establishes laws to end the "war of all against all", encourages moral virtue while punishing vice, and respects tradition. Sometimes, in this view, the government is seen as something ordained by a higher power, as in the divine right of kings, which human beings have a duty to obey.

Natural rights

Natural rights are the basis for the theory of government shared by most branches of liberalism (including libertarianism). In this view, human beings are born with certain natural rights, and governments are established strictly for the purpose of protecting those rights. While there is much controversy in the details of natural rights, the tradition of liberalism generally recognize three fundamental natural rights: a right to life, liberty and property. These rights are a common thread of debate from modern natural rights theorists such as Tibor Machan to Enlightenment thinkers such as Locke, Kant, or Jefferson.

Answer 10

Check out the Anarchists site, see what they got to say.