So, I was reading a book about WW2 and I was thinking of government.... So I was wondering your thoughts on this. Do you believe the government knows best. This means that they know what everyones best interest is and they help as much as possable. --- I do not think the government knows best because of the politician civilian ratio. There are so many civilians and not enough politicians that politicians can't possably know what everyone wants. --- Oh, and while I was writing this, I remembered something. I remember someone said that societies should be based on their value system. For example, China values strict discipline and government control. Russia values family. America values Oil, Money, and some other stuff (I don't want to get into it). So do you think that some governments know better than others?
Yes and no. The government can't possibly accommodate for every single person who resides in the country, but they try to do the best things for the majority of it. Even if it was based on values, everyone values different things, it's like saying all Americans value freedom, when I doubt many, including myself, even knows what freedom truly is and that they value something else. Once again, just a p.o.v. ;]
What about the minority that isn't helped. If they help the majority then there are still others without help. Should the government just let them die?
What do you mean by minority? The minority groups should definitely have a say, and the minority by the people whose ideas are different definitely should be accounted for. I think the government has just led us into more conflicts, and wasn't the world supposedly much better without one?!?
Yeah. The world without conflicts. That'd be great... Lets think for a sec.. Um... 1. People would murder eachother 2. People would steal from each other until 1 person has everything, and that 1 person would rule the rest. 3. Um, people would be naturally uncivilized 4. Ect...
Humanity is a corrupt race; we're too greedy as a whole to be willing to live in peace/happily with one another. Homogenous societies, societies where everyone helps everyone else...it'd be great if it'd ever work out, but with humans it won't. The ideas are fine until you add the human variable to the equation. And to get back on topic, I don't think the government knows best, either. After all, they can't accomodate the needs of all, and often government officials are corrupt (e.g. in third world countries), or are just trying to have the best politics for power/re-election (like in the US). For that I'd definitely say no; different societies and cultures as a whole have different values, so I don't think there's anyway to measure that overall. (A particular leader here or there may be "better" than another, but...)
I agree with the beginning of your post so I'm not going to post it up in the quote.... --- Say a society has no government whatsoever, do you consider that wrong? Lastly, are you SURE some governments aren't better than others? Because uh, the Chinese and Russian governments aren't exactly a win if ya catch my drift.
A society with no government? I don't see how that can or cannot be considered "wrong"; what are you asking? (Going against human nature? Morally improper? Your statement doesn't make sense to me.) Ok, the leadership and structure of some governments are undoubtedly better than others, and as far as the Chinese+Russian governnments go, yes, I definitely see your point there, but a government as a whole knowing better? Each country has different needs, and resources to sustain such needs. And now we're debating more as towards WHICH government is best, rather than do governments as a whole know what's best for their people. (On that matter, I'd assume they do from the knowledge the have access to, the only question being whether or not they listen/try to do something about it.)
1. I am saying: "do you think a society with no government is good for the people in the society?" 2. ...So governments should be (or are) customized/formed to help their people?
When you look at societies without governments, such as Somalia, you realize that sometimes you take the social cohesion that government and law provides for granted. In Australia, we're meant to have a 'representative' government, meaning that out of the 150 electorates (80,000 voters), all of the politicians elected will represent a majority of the voters. That, ofcourse, means that they cannot create laws to suit everyone. But they try.. and fail IMO. They made this 42 billion dollar economic stimulus package, paying out 950 dollars to full-time (?) workers who payed tax prior to June 2008, but they didn't account for those who have been sacked because of the economic crisis who commenced work after that date. I, myself, was at full-time Uni during that period, and had my hours grossly cut back due to the economic downturn, so I do not get any of that money. Nor do a lot of the people I know. That kind of stuff annoys me. The times when, despite the amount of people in parliament, and the total of their respective IQ's, their logic fails.. epicly.
It's impossible to be 'right' because there are just too many wants from too many people. Government does not know best, because government is made up of people, flesh and blood like anybody else. Sometimes it's not the smartest of people in there either, because in politics, at least in America, connections come before ability.
1) That depends on the particular peoples. I mean, sure, I suppose that theoretically one of Locke's "civilized societies" is possible, but...a society with no government...humans are naturally gregarious, as well as greedy for power, I really doubt that'd even be possible. (I think someone would, at some point or another, try to seize power and rule.) 2) They pretty much are, imo.
Essentially, a government shouldn't be customized or formed because that's how the people believe it should be governed. A government should be voted in because they have favourable, ethical and viable policies that will benefit society. If you don't do that, what you have is fascism, mate! And as for a society without government: no true society functions without a leading power. 'Nuff said.
The first part of that was semi-contradictory in taht governments ARE customized, simply because different peoples have different ethical beliefs, different desires, etc., so what benefits one society compared to another differs. As I see it, the two are interlocked. And no society functions without leading power, even back when humans were in tribes we'd still have a tribe leader, or shaman, or the suchlike.
So societies only function properly when they have a customized government? What if every tribe/society had the same ethical beliefs, social desires, same view points, etc...? Would all the societies then have the same government?
At the very basics, yes. And in the case of homogeneity to that extent, Locke's theoretical civilized society could exist and there would be need for government.
I believe every society needs some sort of foundation for law (or at least social norms) in order to thrive to the fullest extent. Law stops people from killing each other, and it's a great idea until corruption comes in.