English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

As a liberal, I'm with the latter. I think there are certain things only a democratic government can do best.

For example, printing money, holding armies, serving justice (police, courts, prisons), giving every single citizen the opportunity to get educated regardless of the social class they were born into, ending child labor, owning highways and public parks, and stopping private corporations (controlled by only a hanful of people) from abusing workers, scamming the consumer, and polluting the environment.

2007-07-03 01:46:21 · 11 answers · asked by trovalta_stinks_2 3 in Politics & Government Politics

DETAILED EXAMPLE 1:
Imagine if several private entities printed their own version of money. Each region of the country would have its primary money printing company, but in some regions you might have two or even more competitors. Exchanging money would be prone to scamming. If you are new to a certain region, you would not know which company is the most trusted and which are fly by night scamming operations. Money exchanging would be also complicated and inefficient. It is better cut out the middle man money exchanger and have only one entity, the Department of Treasury, print only one form of money. Besides being simpler and more efficient, having only one money printing entity means inflation can be better controlled.

2007-07-03 01:46:33 · update #1

colorado,

I'm not advocating a government that controls everything. You, however, seem to be against government interfering in business. Does that mean you're against anti-child labor laws, 40 hour work weeks, overtime pay, workman's compensation, work place safety laws, laws that protect the environment, and laws that protect the consumer from corporate fraud?

2007-07-03 01:55:01 · update #2

Heart,

There is a reason we have thing such as work place safety and anti-child labor laws. It's because private industry was not protecting its workers, and it took a democratic government to fix those types of problems.

2007-07-03 01:58:08 · update #3

"Democratic government" not as in party, but as a government elected by the people. Left-wing progressive Republicans like Theodore Roosevelt did some good things for workers too.

2007-07-03 01:59:15 · update #4

11 answers

Great list.

I would define the government responsibilities to be those things which create a 'safety net' for the public. The safety net is from dangers from without and from within, from sickness/disease.

Privatization has yet to be shown to be a better way of doing things in my eye in 95% of the examples I've seen.

peace

2007-07-03 02:56:34 · answer #1 · answered by words_smith_4u 6 · 0 1

You should take a look at a little document that I like to call The Constitution of the United States of America. It specifically lists the powers and areas of responsibility that the Founding Fathers gave to the national government. All other powers were supposed to be in the hands of the states or the people (Tenth Amendment.)

Unfortunately, over the past 219 years, the Federal government has taken over control of more and more and more.

If we got back to the Feds controlling only what the Constitution gives them, we would all be much better off.

2007-07-04 15:39:54 · answer #2 · answered by Chredon 5 · 0 0

Government should perform only those functions that can be solved only by the collective. A bad example is the "obesity epidemic". Government has taken it upon itself to "solve" this "public health crisis" when it is simply not a public health crisis. People become obese due to their own choices and it is not solveable only by the collective. A good example is SARS. One could get SARS from simply touching a dooknob. Individuals acting in their self interest could not solve SARS, hence the need for the collective (government) to step in.

What are government's legitimate functions? Read the Constitution and take a look at those very specific and very limited powers.

2007-07-03 02:06:20 · answer #3 · answered by RP McMurphy 4 · 0 0

Much of what the government does is in the interest of justice, public safety and health. These things cannot be left to private enterprise because they are vital to a smooth running society and they don't make money.

2007-07-03 02:07:35 · answer #4 · answered by jehen 7 · 0 0

I'm glad you left off Social Security from your list. That program should have been privatized from the start. Now it's likely too late, and the dung will hit the fan in 2012 when the boomers retire.
It's interesting to note that the baby boomers were the only generation who were made to pay not only the benefits of those people drawing from the fund, but to donate to a fund that would support them as well. That was Reagan's fix to SS when taxable salary was increased from $30,000 to $90,000. Of course, the government raided the fund to balance the budget. So that money is now gone as well.
You use an interesting term in your question, a democratic government. That only describes state and local governments. The federal government shouldn't be involve in such things as education or even roadways. Along with all federal money comes coercion. In any program that requires federal funding, it should be given to the states with no strings attached.

2007-07-03 02:00:45 · answer #5 · answered by .... . .-.. .-.. --- 4 · 2 3

If we are being bled for fuel then so is the entire world; you should consider yourself lucky to live here, prices are lower, you don't have it as bad as Europe does. If big oil really wanted to line their pockets with money then they'd lower prices. We have 7 major oil companies competing in the US, any one of them could lower prices and out compete the other, people would buy their gas only because it's cheaper, they'd make all the profits. They don't do this because they can't, they'd go out of business under selling themselves.

2016-05-17 07:00:56 · answer #6 · answered by ? 3 · 0 0

There are services that need to be run by the government ie. Fire departments and police. However the government should not be responsible for taking care of all the needs of a person. And they should stay away from controlling business.

2007-07-03 01:53:01 · answer #7 · answered by ColoradoBrew 2 · 4 1

Interesting. A few of the things you cite are actually constitutional. Others are "discretionary" meaning the government is not required to do them, and may not be the best entity to do them.

2007-07-03 01:55:27 · answer #8 · answered by ? 6 · 1 0

The Government should fight our wars and take out the trash, that's just about it. Everything else the government tries to do from education all the way down to healthcare, it fails miserably at, and charges a fortune to the taxpayers for their troubles.

2007-07-03 02:10:59 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

This is the best definition I have ever seen of what a government's responsibilities are, "anything that private business couldn't, wouldn't or shouldn't do."

2007-07-03 01:59:45 · answer #10 · answered by kathy_is_a_nurse 7 · 3 0

fedest.com, questions and answers