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

12 answers

People should be responsible for their own actions, but there is only so much an individual can do. The benefits of civilization are a cooperative effort among members of a community. That effort needs coordination and that means government, which can also evaluate its effectiveness as well as determine what should be done in the first place. This includes projects that benefit everyone, parts of the community, and only individuals (such as those who are physically or mentally incapable of managing their own lives).

But once established, any administrative body has an interest in its own survival. Maintaining public order in the name of social efficiency is an important value, but sometimes it becomes an end in itself, and the government takes steps to prevent dissent rather than accommodate it. That's when governments become tyrranical.

No one wants to have to decide everything all the time. We specialize so we can do what we're good at and leave other tasks to other experts. But this requires trust that the others will be honest and civic-minded. The temptation is to take shortcuts through responsibility. Oversight keeps us honest. The treasury needs auditing once in a while. The watchers need watching.

But this is difficult, boring and tricky work. It's Soooo tempting to just let the bureaucrats do their thing and reassure us that they're taking good care of us. That frees us from worry and drudgery, but not from the dangers of overmanagement, where we become what is managed, not our common life. Personal freedom and security against chaos are two values in constant struggle. Too much freedom turns the social contract into a jungle. Too much security turns it into a prison. We value freedom but we know that freedoms conflict, so we establish rules of engagement and agree to abide by them.

We also establish rules that burden us with the responsibility to care for or enable fellow citizens without sufficient resources to adequately live in our society because we believe in the common welfare. Not all cultures do this, but many recognize a human right to live at a tolerable level independent of accidents of birth or other relationship. Those who speak of "merit based" economies and "self-reliance" usually have always had plenty of personal resources, and often don't recognize the advantage they themselves take of public welfare institutions.

Ideally, everyone would live as independently as possible, unburdening the community whenever they could, but they would also cooperate with and rely on the government only as much as necessary to insure a decent life for all. Undeniably, there will be abuse, by benefactors, recipients and administrators, which should be monitored and corrected, but the alternative denies the cooperative interdependence that is a hallmark of humanity. Alone I can do little, together we can do much.

2007-10-18 06:41:42 · answer #1 · answered by skepsis 7 · 0 0

It depends on the situation. I don't believe that people should live off of government support for their entire lives. However, everyone falls on hard times, and I see nothing wrong with accepting government support for a short-term period.

Ideally, the government and the people should work together. Just as our tax money benefits the government, the government should use some of that to benefit people who are in need.

2007-10-18 06:25:26 · answer #2 · answered by ??????? 3 · 0 0

Government is needed for structure.. although it may not always be stable. If we didnt have some type of government then schools wouldn't get built, roads wouldn't be layed, no one would be there to say hey we better recall these lead tainted toys. Sadly as much as some of us may hate government it is needed.

2007-10-18 06:22:38 · answer #3 · answered by Indiana Raven 6 · 0 0

In a way. But there are basic things I think the government should provide to everyone, despite how responsible they are. For example, fire fighters, police, food, shelter, and health care.

2007-10-18 06:20:42 · answer #4 · answered by Take it from Toby 7 · 1 0

God has always been my protection and provision. It has never been the government. I depend upon the Lord through good times and bad times. God says that the man who does not work, does not eat.

2007-10-18 06:33:04 · answer #5 · answered by Jeancommunicates 7 · 1 0

Yes they should like the war on drugs and helping the homeless rather than just turning a blind eye thinking th government will fix it.

2007-10-18 06:29:09 · answer #6 · answered by Grant 4 · 0 0

The government ***** up every thing it touches. Why would anyone want more government?

2007-10-18 06:23:01 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

yes, if you need to drive anywhere be sure to build the roads, and traffic signals, being reliant on the government is very very bad

2007-10-18 06:20:10 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

i think that would lead to chaos. Hence the thought process of a utopia society is out.

2007-10-18 06:20:23 · answer #9 · answered by Triple Threat 6 · 0 0

That WAS the American way. Of course, that was a long time ago.

2007-10-18 06:22:23 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers