A government's role

[exchemist]

Sure, but when i ask where the limitation and checks should be, and your only point regarding such os that an enactment "command support when explained," what am I left to assume?

Ah OK then. Time.

Emergency powers should be time-limited and subject to periodic review by the legislature.

 

[Stevicus]

In light of the current covid-19 situation, i am interested in hear various opinions from the around the world of what posters believe a government's role is. I would like to hear what authority the government ought to have, what laws they ought to enact to engage crises and what checks or limitations should be in place.

I would also be interested to hear if you believe the current global situation has altered your views.

Please note that this is in the debate section. If you do not feel comfortable with being challenged by other posters regarding perceived inconsistencies or engaging in those whose viewpoints differ drastically from your own, please simply like other posts that comport with your line of thinking.

Thank you

If it's a government which derives its power from the collective whole, then it should be focused on the well-being of the collective, first and foremost. However, individual rights are also important, as long as exercising one's individual rights does not have a negative or adverse impact upon the rights of others. I would also favor a system of checks and balances to keep government restrained and focused on maintaining a balance between individual rights and the well-being of the collective whole.

I would also suggest that, apart from the structure and function of government, a certain attitude and philosophy would be required of those choosing to enter government service. Those who do so should treat it as if they're entering some kind of religious order, where they give up their own individuality and personal wants/desires in order to give selfless, faithful, dedicated service to the collective whole.

So, there's individual human rights, and then there's the well-being of the collective whole of the nation-state.

Part of the problem we've had in this country is due to inordinate attention being placed on sub-collective rights, that is, smaller collective units which are said to have "rights" even though they are neither individuals nor governments. This would include corporations, private businesses which are not individual proprietorships, religious organizations, trade associations, lobby groups, social organizations, fraternal organizations - or any other defined "group" whose identity does not include the entirety of the collective whole. Contemporary politicians often refer to these groups as "special interests," and they appear to be the primary source of corruption in this country.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

In ww2, the U.S. government for example, in an effort to defend people and country, created Japanese internment camps. Are these the type of policies you believe a government ought to enact?

In the UK, we interned citizens from the enemy nations. In the USA, in some states the great-grandchildren of immigrants were interned. The former was a reasonable precaution, the latter was racism — people of German ancestry were treated differently.

 

[Curious George]

In the UK, we interned citizens from the enemy nations. In the USA, in some states the great-grandchildren of immigrants were interned. The former was a reasonable precaution, the latter was racism — people of German ancestry were treated differently.

I am not so sure that i agree that interning a person simply because of their national origin is "reasonable."

 

[Stevicus]

I am not so sure that i agree that interning a person simply because of their national origin is "reasonable."

I think most people today would agree with that, although as a theoretical point in the context of your original question, would it fall within a government's role?

Is your question related to what is government's role? Or are we operating under the presumption that the government's basic role has been established, and all we're questioning now are the finer points and the ways and means by which governments carry out that role?

 

[Curious George]

I think most people today would agree with that, although as a theoretical point in the context of your original question, would it fall within a government's role?

Personally, i think it falls outside any government's role as an action such as this ought to remain outside of government authority(imho).

Is your question related to what is government's role? Or are we operating under the presumption that the government's basic role has been established, and all we're questioning now are the finer points and the ways and means by which governments carry out that role?

A little of both. I think this aspect falls into the question regarding the limitations of the government's role. While this is indeed a finer aspect of that i would think that generally speaking, a government should lack the authority to enact laws that allow them to suspend habeus corpus and to enact laws that allow for disparate treatment when such laws are overly broad.

 

[Brickjectivity]

In light of the current covid-19 situation, i am interested in hear various opinions from the around the world of what posters believe a government's role is. I would like to hear what authority the government ought to have, what laws they ought to enact to engage crises and what checks or limitations should be in place.

#1 The government should not create laws which cause large numbers of people to be likely to be criminalized. For example the government did this when it decided that people were criminals for using a certain naturally occurring plant. Lots of people went to prison just for smoking this plant. This was stupid and should not have occurred. The fact that lots of people became criminals as a result of the introduction of a new law suggests that the law was overreaching.

Another limitation should be that the government should admit and acknowledge and verify that it can make mistakes. Commonwealths don't, but they should. This means when commonwealth's err, it is nearly impossible to get the government to officially recognize said mistake.

Another limitation is that governments ought to acknowledge, to admit and verify that the larger a government is the more harmful its oversights are and that those oversights do exist. Consider the stupid ramifications of the government in the current situation of our ridiculous gas-can laws here in the USA. You cannot purchase a gas can which does not spill gas and why? It is because the government tried, ironically, to control the overspill from gas cans. How Government Wrecked the Gas Can - Jeffrey Tucker - Liberty.me The government failed and refused to see that it could make mistakes and was not able to correct its terrible mistake: which was government overreach. Governments don't belong in charge of how individuals pour gasoline, and this situation is evidence of it.

Law is practice. Law is practice. Law is practice. Try to get your government to admit it.

I would also be interested to hear if you believe the current global situation has altered your views.

We didn't need the government to intervene. All it needed to do was to advise. Instead it has taken on the role of 'God', pretending that it values our lives and is our holy mother. Notice that it could have simply advised people to stay in their homes, but instead it used this opportunity to expand its powers. This will come back and bite us all later.

 

[sun rise]

Can you elaborate on what coordinating and marshaling resources means in this instance and might entail in other instances?

What he's talked about was preparing additional care facilities for those who get sick, tracking and trying to increase the availability of ventilators and so forth. In short, taking the requests of epidemiologists seriously and trying to provide what their best estimates say is needed.

In the general case, it's much the same. People with expertise can be wrong but listening to them seriously and not allowing wishful thinking to take precedence is an important beginning.

Part of this is fiscal. He's basically continued the policy of our former governor to build up a "rainy day" fund. Well, it's one heck of a rainstorm and that fund is needed. I'm grateful for the fiscal discipline that caused it to be created and maintained. And from what I've seen so far, it's being properly used in this crisis.

 

[Curious George]

What he's talked about was preparing additional care facilities for those who get sick, tracking and trying to increase the availability of ventilators and so forth. In short, taking the requests of epidemiologists seriously and trying to provide what their best estimates say is needed.

In the general case, it's much the same. People with expertise can be wrong but listening to them seriously and not allowing wishful thinking to take precedence is an important beginning.

Part of this is fiscal. He's basically continued the policy of our former governor to build up a "rainy day" fund. Well, it's one heck of a rainstorm and that fund is needed. I'm grateful for the fiscal discipline that caused it to be created and maintained. And from what I've seen so far, it's being properly used in this crisis.

So then you would say that it falls under the government's role to provide necessary supplies to individuals and private organizations (or just private organizations) in a time of crisis? Does this extend beyond a time of crisis if the need is there and the the goal, to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens, is the same?

Is there a limit to this? A test by which we assess whether an actual need is present? I know you suggested listening to people with expertise, but one can find an expert to say nearly anything.

 

[sun rise]

So then you would say that it falls under the government's role to provide necessary supplies to individuals and private organizations (or just private organizations) in a time of crisis? Does this extend beyond a time of crisis if the need is there and the the goal, to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens, is the same?

Is there a limit to this? A test by which we assess whether an actual need is present? I know you suggested listening to people with expertise, but one can find an expert to say nearly anything.

You ask a central question. My philosophy is that whatever can be done without government should be done without government. Whatever government does should be the minimum necessary to get the job done. This can be stated as government is neither good nor evil but something that can be helpful when conditions warrant.

I'm explicitly avoiding black/white absolute rules but rather flexible principles that ideally people of good character are doing their best to understand and apply.

So in times of crisis or when normal mechanisms are not solving a problem (pollution for example), government needs to be involved.

As to expert advice goes, yes, you are correct - there's always someone who claims to be an expert and wants to be listened to.

I'm rather thinking of times when there is a consensus. When epidemiologists almost universally recommend social distancing, then they should be listened to.

 

[Curious George]

You ask a central question. My philosophy is that whatever can be done without government should be done without government. Whatever government does should be the minimum necessary to get the job done. This can be stated as government is neither good nor evil but something that can be helpful when conditions warrant.

I'm explicitly avoiding black/white absolute rules but rather flexible principles that ideally people of good character are doing their best to understand and apply.

So in times of crisis or when normal mechanisms are not solving a problem (pollution for example), government needs to be involved.

As to expert advice goes, yes, you are correct - there's always someone who claims to be an expert and wants to be listened to.

I'm rather thinking of times when there is a consensus. When epidemiologists almost universally recommend social distancing, then they should be listened to.

While flexibility is understandable limitations and in some cases bright-line rules are important. Using vague language and leaving things fuzzy can very much cause issues in the same way that black/white rules can cause issues.

Saying the "minimum necessary" is also an issue. What is the minimum necessary?

For instance, better funding outreach and education resources for children can be dramatically cheaper then funding the minimum necessary programs to deal with the social problems that coincide with underfunding outreach and education resources for our youth. But, is the preventative funding necessary or is it just the funding to deal with the issue once the issue has occurred that is necessary?

When we deal with terms like "minimum necessary" we are in many ways confining ourselves into a position to only react when specific issues arise.

With regard to experts, i am speaking of people who hold the credentials that qualify them as experts in a particular field. Intelligent minds can and do often disagree, especially when discussing ambiguous language.

 

[sun rise]

Saying the "minimum necessary" is also an issue. What is the minimum necessary?

For instance, better funding outreach and education resources for children can be dramatically cheaper then funding the minimum necessary programs to deal with the social problems that coincide with underfunding outreach and education resources for our youth.

In your example, to me the minimum is to solve the problem which as you note involves outreach and education. Anything less is not solving the problem but in fact is causing worse outcomes.

Maybe an example would help. To me government must be involved in making sure that the health care system is available to everyone at a decent price.

If, for example, Congress is ready to pass and the President to sign a bill but they are considering several options and among them are these options which for the sake of argument all give everyone access to affordable health care.

• Medicare for all who want it with premiums based on ability to pay.
  
• Medicare for all - destroy private health care
• The Swiss system where private insurance companies have to offer basic care but are allowed to offer more if people want to pay for it. The basic care is paid for by taxes and welfare for those unable to pay.

My inclination based on "minimum necessary" is either Medicare for all who want it or the Swiss system and not necessarily destroying the existing structure.

 

[Willamena]

In light of the current covid-19 situation, i am interested in hear various opinions from the around the world of what posters believe a government's role is. I would like to hear what authority the government ought to have, what laws they ought to enact to engage crises and what checks or limitations should be in place.

I would also be interested to hear if you believe the current global situation has altered your views.

Please note that this is in the debate section. If you do not feel comfortable with being challenged by other posters regarding perceived inconsistencies or engaging in those whose viewpoints differ drastically from your own, please simply like other posts that comport with your line of thinking.

Thank you

A federal government's role is the nation's interest. It should expense and mobilize all efforts to combat the virus, just as it would if it were an invading army.

The current gobal situation has not altered my views in that regard.

 

[Curious George]

In your example, to me the minimum is to solve the problem which as you note involves outreach and education. Anything less is not solving the problem but in fact is causing worse outcomes.

I put the issue forth no for you to resolve but to illustrate how disagreement exists when discussing minimal intervention. We could use countless other examples, and while i would estimate that your course of suggested action would parallel mine often enough, the fact remains that many can and do interpret phrases such as "minimally necessary" vastly different than you or I do.

So much so that I would consider "minimally necessary" as political jargon espoused by election candidates.

I would hope to hone in on what minimally necessary means to you.

Maybe an example would help. To me government must be involved in making sure that the health care system is available to everyone at a decent price.
.

This helps in establishing that you believe part of the government's role is providing basic healthcare to all citizens. While the latter portion elaborates on how this may look in the U.S., it doesn't explain much of the limitation or checks on the government. I also hope you realize that there are more than two ways to provide this outcome of providing all citizens and residents with basic healthcare. Do you believe the government should be limited to working with the private sector to reach this goal? And should this only be done through payment systems such as medicare or private health insurance companies?

 

[Curious George]

A federal government's role is the nation's interest. It should expense and mobilize all efforts to combat the virus, just as it would if it were an invading army.

The current gobal situation has not altered my views in that regard.

"All efforts" is pretty extreme. Are you suggesting martial law?

 

[Willamena]

"All efforts" is pretty extreme. Are you suggesting martial law?

Isn't martial law a last effort?