Should it really be up to the government or laws if
-we want people to start treating the environment with care?
-we want our children to learning something in schools and become competitive in the international range?
-we want human beings to live equally with each other?
explain.
Furthermore, feel free to disagree with me. I won't hold it against you
2007-07-11 04:21:42 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
We should not turn over our liberty to acheive these goals. The best example of this is social security - a government program that is in crisis precisely because it is a government program.
Imagine federal health-care. Health-care already costs so much due to excessive government regulation. Also, when we turn over a pile of money to the government to pay for overpriced services and account for government waste, then people start asking questions...
'Now that Joe's health affects me directly, I have no problem with laws that criminalize unhealthy behavior.'
Let's not give the Nanny state more power. Free enterprise is fair and efficient. The best possible solution to provide as well as possible for all. The solution to heath-care is to look at how government is the PROBLEM. not the solution.
2007-07-11 04:31:14 · answer #1 · answered by the_defiant_kulak 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Government is one tool for changing people's behavior but not the only tool. Government has its limitations though:
If you prohibit certain behavior or mandate certain behavior you have to then monitor it and punish those not in compliance, which costs money.
Certainly existing laws regarding pollution, public education, and equal opportunity have resulted in improvements in those areas.
I think one area where the government will be used to a greater extent in the 21st century is quantifying externalities. For example if I produce a product that causes a problem (such as pollution) then the government could determine the cost to clean up that pollution and charge me for that. I would then have to include the cost in the price of my product. That way consumers and producers could continue to act in their own self interests but their decisions would not ignore the negative externalities. I think that's a blend of government oversight and capitalism that makes sense.
2007-07-11 11:39:16 · answer #2 · answered by frugernity 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It should be the government's duty. However it's also the citizens' duty to force the government into carrying out the will of the people.
2007-07-11 11:26:09 · answer #3 · answered by Adam C 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's up to the people. The government will follow (not lead) the people when an idea reaches critical mass.
2007-07-11 11:24:14 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I feel it is up to the people to initiate change. Grass root movements have done more to further a cause than the government.
2007-07-11 11:28:09 · answer #5 · answered by gone 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The US Government is already turning the US into a Jewish Cattle Farm. You and I = happy cows that are being milk.
2007-07-11 11:25:43 · answer #6 · answered by Mr. USA U 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Government RUINS everything it touches.
Look at the public schools, healthcare, welfare, etc.
Communities of free individuals do much much better every single time.
2007-07-11 11:24:53 · answer #7 · answered by fourthy27 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The Republican do that a lot, and look at the results, so I would say no.
2007-07-11 11:34:47 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋