One Role of an Elected Government?

Advanced search

[Terms Of Conduct]

Terms Of Conduct

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[wiscidea]

Some religious folks were discussing two different points of view regarding our (U.S.) government... some Sunday morning show... anyway...

View #1: A role of government is to create an environment that maximizes the opportunity to accumulate wealth, even if by relatively few people. Basically... you can have as much as you are willing to work for or exploit other people for. Every man for himself... as long as the majority of citizens vote for it.

View #2: A role of government is to create an environment that permits a reasonable reward for one's hard work, but applies the brakes if excessive greed is harming others. Basically, you can work hard and exploit people, but will be severely punished if you are living quite comfortably while others suffer... even if it is their own fault... as long as the majority of citizens vote for it.

Is this a moral issue?

Where do you land on a scale of 1 (View#1) to 10 (View #2)?

How do you justify your view?

IMPORTANT: This is in the context of a representative democracy. No dictators controlling the mean of production. No dictators confiscating your resources. All done via elected representatives and in accordance with the Constitution.

[Lilly]

View #1: A role of government is to create an environment that maximizes the opportunity to accumulate wealth, even if by relatively few people. Basically... you can have as much as you are willing to work for or exploit other people for. Every man for himself... as long as the majority of citizens vote for it.

I think the government should get out of people's way so they are encouraged to produce as much wealth as they are willing to work for.  Wealth comes from the production of goods and services, and that's what makes people's lives better.  Government's role, imv, is to assure that there are fair labor laws so that employees are paid a fair wage for their work, that they have a safe environment to do that work, reasonable hours and breaks for lunch, vacation time and the like.  No one needs to be unfairly exploited, but all can benefit from the role they fill in the production of goods and services for society as a whole.   The guy at the top who makes more wealth than others is going to want to use that money to buy other goods and services that employ more people.  It's better than having everyone sit on their butts all day doing nothing and having nothing.

View #2: A role of government is to create an environment that permits a reasonable reward for one's hard work, but applies the brakes if excessive greed is harming others. Basically, you can work hard and exploit people, but will be severely punished if you are living quite comfortably while others suffer... even if it is their own fault... as long as the majority of citizens vote for it.

How is government going to determine what a reasonable reward is for another person's hard work?  In practicality what you're saying here is that a person who works extra hard is going to be penalized by government and have some of the fruits of his labor taken away so it seems "fair."  The wealth that person produces will probably end up in some politician's pocket.  One person working hard and producing goods and services is not what makes another person suffer.  The other person is poor for other reasons than the fact that the hard working man is reaping the benefit of his hard work.  The poor person is poor because he either will not work and accumulate wealth in a fair working environment, or he cannot.  If he cannot work, society should provide for him.

[SteveC]

The role of government is to provide an environment for its citizens to enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I just made that up. It's amazing how these things just come to me out of the blue.

[Lilly]

I know I'm amazed.

[wiscidea]

Would folks like to discuss the meaning of "life", "liberty", and/or "pursuit of happiness" here?

Or do we need three new threads?

Is securing such rights a moral issue?

[SteveC]

Would folks like to discuss the meaning of "life", "liberty", and/or "pursuit of happiness" here?

Or do we need three new threads?

Is securing such rights a moral issue?

It becomes a moral issue when those very broad ideals are lost or when the playing field becomes uneven.

[ChicagoHeathen]

Life is pretty obvious... except where it isn't. Where do frozen embryos and abortion fit into the picture? Where do people in persistent vegetative states fit into the picture? Where do people who want to commit suicide fit into the picture?

Liberty. Everyone seems to know what it means, but no one seems to agree with what it applies to. If it isn't causing harm to anyone, do I have the liberty to go to the beach stark naked? Do I have the liberty to protest, to sing in the shower, to sing on a street corner? Do I have the liberty to wed who I want to, to vote for who I want to? Does everyone?

The pursuit of happiness. If Life and liberty are problematic, this one is worse. So many different things make so many people happy. Why are some things that harm people legal, though, and some things that don't harm people not? For example, why can I buy cigarettes, that would harm both myself and anyone inhaling the secondhand smoke, including children, but I can't enter into marriage with a fully-consenting other adult female, who I doubt anyone else would be inhaling? I don't get it.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are our inalienable rights. It just isn't clear if everyone has them, or if society feels that everyone really should.

Frith,
CH

[Metis]

I think both ideas are quite important.  We need the freedom to create that which advances society, but at the same time we are "our brother's (and sister's) keeper" as well.  In Judaism, we have long held the position that the ideal is that everyone would be equal, while at the same time realizing that this is not possible.  The prophets talked much about justice and compassion, and there was always provisions required to help take care of the poor, and we see that the teachings of both Jesus and Mohammed essentially followed suit.

I cannot give a 1-10 scale on either, largely because any number assigned might have to be altered depending on what's going on in society.  Hard times may require more regulations and compassionate giving, and good times probably less so.          

[kwd111]

Life is pretty obvious... except where it isn't. Where do frozen embryos and abortion fit into the picture? Where do people in persistent vegetative states fit into the picture? Where do people who want to commit suicide fit into the picture?

Liberty. Everyone seems to know what it means, but no one seems to agree with what it applies to. If it isn't causing harm to anyone, do I have the liberty to go to the beach stark naked? Do I have the liberty to protest, to sing in the shower, to sing on a street corner? Do I have the liberty to wed who I want to, to vote for who I want to? Does everyone?

The pursuit of happiness. If Life and liberty are problematic, this one is worse. So many different things make so many people happy. Why are some things that harm people legal, though, and some things that don't harm people not? For example, why can I buy cigarettes, that would harm both myself and anyone inhaling the secondhand smoke, including children, but I can't enter into marriage with a fully-consenting other adult female, who I doubt anyone else would be inhaling? I don't get it.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are our inalienable rights. It just isn't clear if everyone has them, or if society feels that everyone really should.

Frith,
CH

Great post.  Maybe that is why President John Adams said "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

The confusion comes in that we are no longer a moral and religious people

[Celsus]

Life is pretty obvious... except where it isn't. Where do frozen embryos and abortion fit into the picture? Where do people in persistent vegetative states fit into the picture? Where do people who want to commit suicide fit into the picture?

Liberty. Everyone seems to know what it means, but no one seems to agree with what it applies to. If it isn't causing harm to anyone, do I have the liberty to go to the beach stark naked? Do I have the liberty to protest, to sing in the shower, to sing on a street corner? Do I have the liberty to wed who I want to, to vote for who I want to? Does everyone?

The pursuit of happiness. If Life and liberty are problematic, this one is worse. So many different things make so many people happy. Why are some things that harm people legal, though, and some things that don't harm people not? For example, why can I buy cigarettes, that would harm both myself and anyone inhaling the secondhand smoke, including children, but I can't enter into marriage with a fully-consenting other adult female, who I doubt anyone else would be inhaling? I don't get it.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are our inalienable rights. It just isn't clear if everyone has them, or if society feels that everyone really should.

Frith,
CH

Great post.  Maybe that is why President John Adams said "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

The confusion comes in that we are no longer a moral and religious people

So it's more moral to force a person to live like a vegetable for month instead of allowing this person to die? Why?

[SteveC]

Life is pretty obvious... except where it isn't. Where do frozen embryos and abortion fit into the picture? Where do people in persistent vegetative states fit into the picture? Where do people who want to commit suicide fit into the picture?

Liberty. Everyone seems to know what it means, but no one seems to agree with what it applies to. If it isn't causing harm to anyone, do I have the liberty to go to the beach stark naked? Do I have the liberty to protest, to sing in the shower, to sing on a street corner? Do I have the liberty to wed who I want to, to vote for who I want to? Does everyone?

The pursuit of happiness. If Life and liberty are problematic, this one is worse. So many different things make so many people happy. Why are some things that harm people legal, though, and some things that don't harm people not? For example, why can I buy cigarettes, that would harm both myself and anyone inhaling the secondhand smoke, including children, but I can't enter into marriage with a fully-consenting other adult female, who I doubt anyone else would be inhaling? I don't get it.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are our inalienable rights. It just isn't clear if everyone has them, or if society feels that everyone really should.

Frith,
CH

Great post.  Maybe that is why President John Adams said "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

The confusion comes in that we are no longer a moral and religious people

I don't judge you to be a qualified arbiter of such things.

[Celsus]

I don't judge you to be a qualified arbiter of such things.

Why not? He's got a personal relationship with an invisible being. Isn't that enough?

[SteveC]

I don't judge you to be a qualified arbiter of such things.

Why not? He's got a personal relationship with an invisible being. Isn't that enough?

edited by moderator coachbob: off topic

[ChicagoHeathen]

I don't think we're necessarily any more or less moral than the original colonists who became the first citizens of the United States. In some ways we're more moral, in some ways less.

It is possible that we are less religious than then, but I tend to think it is more that it is publicly acceptable to be less religious, not that the Founders or the once-colonists were all so much more religious. Certainly, they had their share of Deists and Freethinkers.

What IS true, however, is that our current society is more diverse and pluralistic than it was in the 1770s and 1780s. What is true is that "common" definitions aren't, and that "religion" means many different things to many different people.

As far as John Adams goes, first of all, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is a quote from the Declaration of Independence, NOT the Constitution. Secondly, John Adams also was responsible for the following quotes:

“This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it”
“The government of the United States is not in any sense founded upon the Christian religion”
“The Pythagorean, as well as the Platonic philosophers, probably concurred in the fabrication of the Christian Trinity”

I am not certain, KWD, that what you call and what John Adams called religion are the same thing.

Frith,
CH

[Lilly]

Liberty. Everyone seems to know what it means, but no one seems to agree with what it applies to. If it isn't causing harm to anyone, do I have the liberty to go to the beach stark naked? Do I have the liberty to protest, to sing in the shower, to sing on a street corner? Do I have the liberty to wed who I want to, to vote for who I want to? Does everyone?

I've always viewed this phrase in the Constitution to be more about having the liberty to determine the law by which we live rather than have it dictated to us.  Can you run naked on the beach, or can you be free from having to see someone else running naked on the beach?  We, the people, have the liberty to decide through our representatives what the law will be on this. 

The pursuit of happiness. If Life and liberty are problematic, this one is worse. So many different things make so many people happy.

Historically, I think this phrase meant the pursuit of a living and property.  In 1883 a Justice of the Supreme Court defined it this way:  "Among these inalienable rights, as proclaimed in that great document, is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant the right to pursue any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give to them their highest enjoyment."

This has changed over time to be a broader definition of happiness and the things that make us happy.

[Today]

• Science Corrects Itself by Ed.W [Today at 07:07:23 PM]
• Religion gets ugly by charliejohn [Today at 02:48:42 PM]
• Abortion gets UGLY by CCC460 [Today at 12:09:55 PM]
• God No Longer Male by CCC460 [Today at 10:34:45 AM]
• A thought by Betsy by kwd111 [Today at 09:23:57 AM]
• Another Free Spirit Canne... by SteveC [September 06, 2010, 09:46:29 PM]
• Very interesting theory! by SteveC [September 06, 2010, 09:30:59 PM]
• Very Interesting Insight by kwd111 [September 06, 2010, 03:29:51 PM]
• Jewish Understanding by SteveC [September 06, 2010, 09:57:12 AM]
• GOOD Science by SteveC [September 05, 2010, 10:12:43 PM]
• A Miracle Picture is Wort... by kwd111 [September 04, 2010, 08:41:28 PM]
• Best Science by kwd111 [September 04, 2010, 01:56:27 PM]
• WOW by SteveC [September 02, 2010, 07:24:09 PM]
• Very Logical - Abortion I... by kwd111 [September 01, 2010, 09:13:15 AM]
• Court Upholds Expulsion o... by kwd111 [August 31, 2010, 09:07:08 PM]
• Atheist believes in Intel... by kwd111 [August 30, 2010, 05:41:49 PM]
• Radioactice Decay Not Con... by SteveC [August 28, 2010, 11:03:26 AM]
• Assumptions. by kwd111 [August 26, 2010, 10:24:55 AM]
• Is this your perspective ... by kwd111 [August 26, 2010, 10:19:53 AM]
• Adult Stem Cell Research ... by kwd111 [August 26, 2010, 07:37:57 AM]

Members

• Total Members: 564
• Latest: jerrellowensa

Stats

• Total Posts: 87094
• Total Topics: 2648
• Online Today: 74
• Online Ever: 135
• (July 09, 2010, 02:08:16 PM)

Users Online

Users: 4
Guests: 17
Total: 21

SteveC
Ed.W
CCC460
kwd111