In your opinion, to what extent should the government be involved in citizens' lives? Please be as specific as possible and use examples. Thank you so much!
2007-05-07 17:04:37 · 7 answers · asked by freakyfluter 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Provide for the common defense against foreign invasion (well, that's not working)
Provide for a safe infrastructure (well, that's not working either)
Maintain an adequate peacekeeping force (nope, still lacking)
Provide for the general health and welfare for those citizens who can't afford it (hmmmm, works for the illegals but that's about it)
Provide a minimal police force to aid in the apprehension and control of criminals (ha ha ha)
Provide a judiciary for criminals (another ha ha ha)
Nope, I guess the government shouldn't be involved in my life as they only tend to bring me problems with no help.
signed
average White Christian Man
2007-05-07 17:14:22 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
To the least amount possible! No social security, No government benefits (except for vets), No individual income taxes. To the extent that government is involved in citizen's lives there is a corresponding reduction of freedom and choice. Read "Free to Choose", a book by Milton and Rose Friedman.
2007-05-08 00:15:29 · answer #2 · answered by taurushead 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I dunno. The 'government' is the people. If you're suggesting that the 'government' is some kind of alien critter then someones been listening to way to much right wing radio. The maintenance of social and physical infastructure, the very things that allow us to live in a first world country, can only be directed by government. Countries without that kind of central authority are either 3rd world countries or 'non-countries' controled by local warlords. The short specific answer to your question is that 'we the people', or the 'government' if you prefer the term, has a legitimate function in a large number of situations that involve large numbers of people. This involvment reduces social friction by providing the greatest good for the greatest number. I know every word of this post will bring out the reactionaries and their usual BS about commies and 'liberals', but I'll bet a dollar to a donut that none of these guys would care to live in some 3rd world thugocracy. (Or maybe they would if they could be the thugs)
2007-05-08 01:07:25 · answer #3 · answered by Noah H 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They go way to far in governing our lives. For example in Chicago it is now illegal to serve foie gras in a resturaunt. These are private businesses that were serving a dish that is 100% legal by any other definition. When they start banning certain foods because of pressure from small groups, it is over the top.
2007-05-08 00:28:55 · answer #4 · answered by School Is Great 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The government should take care of the roads subsidize mass transit provide basic health care to all and live by the Charter of Freedoms and Rights
They should regulate corperate prices when monoplolies exist - They should limit how many media outlets one company or person can own - they should regulate all banking and other financial institutions -
They should keep our soldiers out of other peoples problems
2007-05-08 00:14:26 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
What citizens?
Moral Citizens? The government should have minimal involvement in their lives.
Amoral citizens? These need alot more governing.
.
2007-05-08 00:14:20 · answer #6 · answered by s2scrm 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
#1 national security at home.
#2 roads, bridges, communication
#3 making FAIR laws for all people
#4 Staying out of our personal life.........AKA..patroit act, pro life tards, religious right wing wackos.........stay out of our personal lifes Neo-cons!!!
2007-05-08 00:19:25 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋