Government responsibility

Mikie

In order to answer the question about what the government is responsible for, we have to ask about the principles of that government.

Supposedly the government of the United States is "of, by, and for the people." Who are the "people"? Should not the representatives the "people" elect listen to what they care about? That's the ideal, and often professed as a positive end.

But this isn't what's happening in the neoliberal era.

Government works, in our current age, for the powerful and the wealthy, particularly large donors and lobbyists, and usually in the form of multinational corporations. This is not too far out of line with what many framers thought.

"Government ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority." -- the Constitution's architect, James Madison

"Those who own the country ought to govern it." -- John Jay

"The people are nothing but a great beast." Alexander Hamilton

So if we think this is correct, then the responsibility of the state should be very limited. No "big government." Yet the framers argued strongly in favor of a central government. So what should the state be limited to, given the assumptions of Madison, Jay, and Hamilton?

"Everybody wants to cut down on government, provided that those things he has an interest in are maintained." -- Milton Friedman

The state's main responsibility, therefore, whether we agree with it or not, for the last 40 years has been to serve the interests of the wealthy.

I personally think this is not just immoral but irrational -- or in more colloquial language, stupid.

jgill

Far too much wealth in far too few hands.

jorndoe

Would it not be a matter of who voters vote for?
That's assuming voters are most of "the people".
Of course voters can be poorly or well informed or be invested in some way, and candidates have varying resources for campaigning, and resourceful haters can launch smearing campaigns, etc, which can muddle things up.
Yet, suppose a majority decides to vote for Jane Doe 'cuz she cool (like the best of Jefferson, Lincoln, JFK, Carter), or something.
Jane Doe is among "the people" and voters, not somehow apart or isolated therefrom.
Barring something odd, Jane Doe would then become president, and could push those cool things, because the voters picked her and employed her to make it so.
In principle at least, voters decide, so that's where such powers lie, and where efforts could be directed?
Government leadership (like Jane Doe) has the responsibility of doing the (cool) things they said they'd do, right?

Sir2u

Jane Doe would then become president, and could push those cool things, because the voters picked her and employed her to make it so. — jorndoe

Unfortunately the president does not make the laws and make things happen, that is the job of the congress. So people should actually spend more time finding out what their congress person is offering them.

Vera Mont

Government can't possibly work anymore, because there is no consensus as to its functions, limitations or even the principles on which it operates. 23 of the states are already on board for altering the Constitution https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/19/conservative-supreme-court-amend-constitution.
Any form of government - I mean any form; oligarchy, monarchy, theocracy, communal, democratic, feudal, syndicalist - works, as long as the majority of citizens and the majority of rulers abide my the same set of known rules.
When half the country, or the most powerful leaders, reject those rules, it usually breaks down in civil war.
When the rulership and lawmaking are determined by money, it breaks down in corruption.
In this case, both.

Government responsibility

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions