Politics 101

Which pal asked you to starte this thread??

Secret. Everything about me is secret.

heh!

Except for my good looks. That I share with the world.

well, more of the inquisition this weekend......

You gotta start with voice and proper behavior. Government is essentially a construct to enforce proper behavior. Laws are enacted to prescribe the behavior such as murder, theft,etc.forpersonal acts and for organisational behavior various acts. The judges are there to ensure it is done correctly. There are the enforcers such as the police and the miltary for internal and external enforcement. Treaties are also prescribed acts for nations and between nations. But people being imperfect requires government so we must elect politicians to look after this government.

I always considered that the (perhaps naively & idealized) proper intent of government was to maximize the freedom of the individual through the maintenance of social order.

Government is expected to codify the behavior of its citizens, but it's real purposes are deeper than that.

Government is the protector of the people.
Foreign threat. Governments came into being while our distant ancestors struggled for existence. It was essential that the tribe's territory be protected from incursion if hunger was to be avoided. After our ancestors settled down to an agricultural existence the danger of raids from still wandering warrior societies was even greater. To protect the tribe, armed force and active defense measures were vital. Military effectiveness was, and remains, one of the most fundamental purposes of government. To fail in its ability to protect and project the power of the nation, would be a fatal failure of any government.

Bulward against disaster. Government from its earliest times also is expected to provide a measure of security against the misfortunes that might fall upon the whole. Government is expected to maintain surpluses against times of famine. Traditionally this expectation of government bound it to the religious views of the People. The Chinese Emperor was almost autonomous, but was still subject to the Will and Mandate of Heaven and required to live a strictly regulated ritual life. The leaders most advanced civilizations in America were similarily bound. Today in secular societies, this facit of government has shifted. Government is expected to provided public health and sanitation systems against disease, to provide a minimal income for the aged and impoverished, to provide emergency aid in the event of natural disasters, etc.

Government provides the means for the peoples security and prosperity. Government can protect and organize its citizens effectively if it provides a growing, but stable, economy. This is dependant upon control of the national currency and debt. Government determines what tariffs, if any, are appropriate to the nations well-being. To achieve these objectives, government must have a system of raising the capital necessary for government to function. This usually means a taxation of some sort. It is government's responsiblity to wisely prioritize and budget the available funds to best meet the demands made upon government.

Government is responsible for the admnistration of justice, as defined in accord with the nation's political structure. Government is responsible for building, maintaining and protecting the infrastructure along which the nation's commerce flows. To be effective, government must foster an efficient communications network tying together the distant parts of its reach. It is responsible for maintaining intelligence services to spy out the capabilities and intentions of foriegn powers.

Government is the organizer of the people. Another of government's fundamental responsiblities is to organize and coordinate the collective efforts of individual citizens to achieve national objectives and goals. The oldest such systems were despotic warlords, whose will was defined everything the group did. As societies became more complex, so did the problems of organization and coordination. For a long time this only resulted in the "kings" delegation of tyrany to subordinates. The ancient Greeks experimented with the novel idea that society might be governed by the citizens themselves. That experiment failed, but inspired many later attempts to find a workable "democracy". The Roman idea of a "Republic", though nothing like modern republics, was more successful and only petered out in the late 4th century. For a thousand years thereafter Europe reverted to a hybrid of feudalism and theocracy (government by religous doctrine). This evolved after the Rennaisance and introduction of gunpowder and printing into a long period of bitter religious wars (the Reformation and Counter-Reformation). In the meantime, the New World was being settled by Europeans and the idea of self-rule re-emerged out of the ideas of the Enlightenment, and frustration with government from afar. The idea of an American Democracy was fast falling into failure, when it was rescued by the ratification of the U.S. Constitution. I think that is enough history, and that most readers are familiar enough with the political history of the last two hundred years for me to leave off.

Government is the public face of the people. Government is responsible for forming and conducting foriegn policy and diplomacy. Treaties and international agreements are made by governments, not individuals. The decision of when to go to war and how wars are to be conducted is the function of government, even though the People may not be initially pleased with the results.

Government reflects the values and aspirations of the people when it springs from the People's Will. Government that is imposed upon the People will not long endure if it fails to adjust its tyrany to the fundamental values and aspirations of the People. Marxism failed to understand and account for the fact that individuals have a need to provide for their own and their families future prosperity. Marxism and extreme socialist systems lead to inefficiency and the loss of individual initiative. Marxism and the extreme forms of socialism remain alive and popular with the world's academics, intellectuals, and the most impoverished ignorant masses, in spite of its manifest failure as a political system of government.

all forms of government, by definition, are pernicious.

Ah yes, I forgot to even mention the Anarchist system that was so popular from the late 19th century into the 1930's. If men were angels and society were simple, then what need of govenment?

one could answer with, to maintain an orderly society which then leads to the next question "orderly for who?" surely asherman you aren't suggesting that the intent of government is to maintain order for the common man, are you?

shucks, why not? Without order there is chaos, and no one is likely to prosper in an unpredictable world.

The presumption of any real long term predictability is in no way axiomatic with government as we have it today.

Is it probable and predictable that the money in your pocket will be accepted in return for the goods and services you purchase during in the foreseeable future?
Is monetary inflation in our economy controlled?
Is the mail delivered in a timely fashion?
Are telecommunications dependable?
Do you get a tax bill on a regular basis?
Do the police and fire departments come when summoned?
Are the courts open and hearing disputed cases?
If you violate the laws, are you likely to be arrested and charged?
Do you get a tax bill on a regular basis?
Are elections held in accordance with law and custom?

If you answered "yes" to even a few of these questions, then you must agree, I think, that the government IS predictable. People need predictability, a feeling that future risks will be manageable. There is, of course, a degree of uncertainty about what the future will be ... and the further into the future we try to delve, the more likely we will be wrong.

Scientists assure us that our sun will burn out in a few billion years. That's pretty certain, but we aren't much concerned with that because today we have a living to earn, bills to pay, children to raise and parents to care for. A hundred years from now the political world may be totally unrecognizable to anyone living today. Will it be a "better" world? Who can say, all we can be sure of is that it will probably be different than we are used to. The people of that time, our descendants, will be as content or dissatisfied with their lot as we are with our own. We will appear to them as either living during a Golden Ager, or as a Nightmare Time.

The thing is, we don't know much. We haven't full knowledge, much less understanding of the issues that are immediately before us. Decisions have to be made with imperfect knowledge, and with little appreciation of all of the possible consequences of our acts. Yet act we must, or be subject to the whims and actions of others ... some of whom pray for our destruction. We, and our representatives, have our common heritage to guide us. We must be firm in our dedication to the fundamental principles and values of Western Civilization, if it is to survive. Will it survive? I for one certainly hope so. I would not want my great-great-great-great grandchildren to live in a world where tyranny was the norm, where they were not free to worship as they please, or were afraid to speak their minds freely to their peers.

I remember having 'future' conversations with you, it was fun! I have to go for a bit, I'll try and answer more fully later. Suffice it to say however, I am not at all convinced that telecommunications and/or monetary systems are intrinsically dependent on the type of overbearing centralized government we have now.

In answer to your question as per "is monetary inflation in our economy controlled?" the answer is a definitive no; if you mean can the government control inflation, and if you mean by inflation too many dollars chasing too few goods.

Thomas Paine had a useful description of politics and why it was needed about half way through "Common Sense."

"I am not at all convinced that telecommunications and/or monetary systems are intrinsically dependent on the type of overbearing centralized government we have now." Let's take out the word "overbearing" from your posting, it is prejoritive and merely a matter of your own perception. What is overbearing to one, may easily be regarded by another as lackadaisical.

Prior to the strong centralized government mandated by the Constitution, this nation was on the verge of failure. States and individuals worked for their personal profit at the expense of the whole. There was no coherent foreign policy, and the central government had virtually no powers. Each State assessed its own taxes and tariffs. The United States has prospered, become strong and a leader of in the world by the institutions that it has evolved. For the nation to be strong, requires a strong government capable of flexible and effective response to conditions. Having a executive capable and willing to act promptly is both essential and dangerous, unless the Legislative and Judicial branches continue to function as designed. In my mind, both those branches are alive and healthy in 2006, and so I don't spend much time worrying about Mr. Bush.

Prior to the banking and treasury reforms enacted during the mid-20th century, the national economy was in constant turmoil. For decades currency was issued by private banks and the individual States. This greatly complicated business. The question of whether paper money should be backed by gold alone, or by silver was an important question during the Guilded Age. Had the Federal Government had better control of the nations money, it is likely that the Great Depression could have been avoided, or at least made less destructive to so many. It would be a national disaster if the Federal government were to be any less involved in the economy and currency than it is today.

Telecommunications has revolutionized our world, and remains largely unregulated. I suppose we all hope that will continue, but it isn't likely. The band widths are finite, and are already filling up. Certain bands are essential to the operation of government, and the technologies that lie at the heart of our military doctrine. Aircraft could not fly safely without having secure radio signals. Emergeny bands are essential to police, fire and a dozen other arms of government. The public airways belong to the People, but are licensed to private networks. Government has a responsibility to the People to police those licenses to insure that the Public interest is protected. That is a balancing act between accountability and censorship, that the government has always avoided.

The internet should remain free and open to all, with no censorship. I am not much concerted that government watches what is being said on the internet. The signals are not private, but open to almost anyone with a bit of technical knowledge. If hackers can read the traffic, why should not the government monitor the signals for information regarding threats to the nation? The very volume of the internet traffic prevents the government from monitoring more than a fraction of it, and that I'm sure is directed toward messages that are "on their face" of a suspicious nature. I believe that China's efforts to censor internet traffic as a means of controlling dissent is doomed to failure, as any such effort would be.

Uhhh, Amigo, I thought liberals did not believe in God? Or at least in a Judeo-Christian God, because after all, other gods, as interpreted by other religions like Muslim, do not believe in alot of your inalienable rights. Just thought I would mention that before you get too far down the road here. Remember the liberal belief of separation between church and state. Belief in God is church, remember?

And anarchy, the lack of government, is the most pernicious . . . a Hobbesian nightmare of the "war of all against all" . . .