Purpose of government

[Ricardo]

Today in my political science class I received 5 questions concerning government and the type I believe we should have. One of the questions is what is the purpose of the government" My teacher explained that she does not necessarily mean the current form of government, but any type at all, including, things such as worker councils, parent teacher organizations, and even tribes on Survivor.

I wrote that one of the only purposes is to aid in the betterment of society.

What are your opinions?

[Whitten]

The purpose of a government is to make decisions that in the given society are not permitted, or not possible, for an individual to make. Different societies define what decisions an individual is allowed to make differently, and generally define our political ideologies.

[The Grey Blur]

The country was founded on the principle that uhh..the primary role of government is to protect property..from the majority and uhh, so it remains

[Forward Union]

The point of the government is to decide how everyone else should live, and make sure they do it. It's an inherantly opressive instrument.

The purpose of a government should be to abolish itself.

[bcbm]

The purpose of all governments is to protect the ruling class.

[More Fire for the People]

Governments do not have a ‘purpose’ because a ‘purpose’ would imply some doctrine or dogma. The state is the armed organization of the ruling class over the non-ruling classes. The idea that the state is somehow anything else—for instance, a representative democracy or parliamentary democracy—is a piece ideological fiction propagated by the lackeys of the state.

[violencia.Proletariat]

What are you talking about when you are referring to government?

The state is somehwhat like hopscotch stated, its the institution for a MINORITY to rule over a majority. But he and I have different views as we follow two different idealogies.

Government can also be the conditions people develope in order to live together in a society. However on the left, this is not usually whats implied by the term "government" it's instead used when referring to the state.

[Labor Shall Rule]

As I am sure that somebody has already made clear, the "government" can be a decentralized system of communes and worker councils that rule through the direct democratic consensus of the populace. The "state" is a centralized armed organization that is controlled by the ruling class. The purpose of government is too complex of a question to ask, simply because there are many answers.

[JazzRemington]

The State is a social institution in which one group of people has a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence and is used to enforce specific economic relationships, depending upon the period in history of course.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Governments are supposed to provide food, clothing, shelter, healthcare, employment, education, and consumer goods to their people collectively OR not exsist.

[Janus]

It's an inherantly opressive instrument.
There's a difference between government and a state. A government in its broadest sense is a body which wields power and administrative authority. Thus, even a communist society would have a government in that the power govern.

The purpose of governments is to maintain stability, order, and give those who control it legitimacy in their actions.

[RebelDog]

Originally posted by black banner black [email protected] 20 2006, 10:16 PM
The purpose of all governments is to protect the ruling class.
This is the best definition of government there has been on this page.

It is their raison d'être to protect the elite and serve their interests. Representative democracy is designed to give them legitimacy. Government and the state must be abollished in time.

[bombeverything]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 01:38 AM
Governments are supposed to provide food, clothing, shelter, healthcare, employment, education, and consumer goods to their people collectively OR not exsist.

And as this could never happen there is no rationale for their existence.


Government and the state must be abollished now.

I agree.

[apathy maybe]

Given the 'definition' for government that you have been given the usual anarchist answers to not apply as such. The state is of course an unnecessary evil, but organisation is not an evil at all.

And that is what it seems to me what is meant by government in this context, as such, there is no answer. It depends on what the organisation was set up to do.

In the case of governments such as are around today, see the answer for the state.


The only possible justification for a government is for it to look after all people, and protect them, but as has been mentioned, this is impossible.


Originally posted by JazzRemington+--> (JazzRemington)The State is a social institution in which one group of people has a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence and is used to enforce specific economic relationships, depending upon the period in history of course.
[/b]True, but not an answer to the question ...
Of course you and I would might disagree (or we might not) about what the role of the state in a post-capitalist society would be. I do not think that it is about to disappear or whither away at all, we have to force it to die; and in its death throes it will try and kill us too.


Janus
There's a difference between government and a state. A government in its broadest sense is a body which wields power and administrative authority. Thus, even a communist society would have a government in that the power govern.

The purpose of governments is to maintain stability, order, and give those who control it legitimacy in their actions.In an anarchist society (which ultimately any communist society will be) there will be no government as you describe it. There will be no power or administrative authority. What is the point of such things? To force others to actions they would not otherwise do.

We do not need a government to maintain "stability, order, and give those who control it legitimacy in their actions". As soon as you talk of legitimacy, I tend to think of force being used against me because I dare to object. Legitimacy is a falsehood, a lie by those in power to those who are not. We do not need it!

[grove street]

Originally posted by apathy maybe+Sep 21 2006, 10:49 AM--> (apathy maybe @ Sep 21 2006, 10:49 AM) .


Janus
There's a difference between government and a state. A government in its broadest sense is a body which wields power and administrative authority. Thus, even a communist society would have a government in that the power govern.

The purpose of governments is to maintain stability, order, and give those who control it legitimacy in their actions.In an anarchist society (which ultimately any communist society will be) there will be no government as you describe it. There will be no power or administrative authority. What is the point of such things? To force others to actions they would not otherwise do.

We do not need a government to maintain "stability, order, and give those who control it legitimacy in their actions". As soon as you talk of legitimacy, I tend to think of force being used against me because I dare to object. Legitimacy is a falsehood, a lie by those in power to those who are not. We do not need it! [/b]
Sorry but I don't agree with that. There will always be some form of control. In a communist society it would be the control of the people through communes and workers councils. If someone go's against the rule of the majority then they will have to be brought to justice.

[apathy maybe]

The rule of the majority is just as bad as the rule of the minority.

When you talk of justice and control, then you need some minority to actually carry out that control.

As soon as you start talking about justice, I think of the present 'justice' system. The present system is not a justice system, it is a judicial/legal system. It sounds like you want to re-implement a system like we have now, with all the injustices.

If you have any knowledge of history you know that rule of the majority is prone to abuse and injustice. This is why for many years Liberals were against democracy, because they had seen "popular rule" in France (for example).

Majority rule is 50% +1, is it justice for the 50% -1 to go against that majority? Should they all be punished? Is it justice for the majority to say that they do not like a minority because (for example) of the colour of their skin?

Fuck all rule. Fuck all control.

While I do not believe in "natural rights", it is a continent fiction, and unfortunately "majority rule" all too often acts against those natural rights.

[nightwatchman]

The way I see it is that the government as only three legitimate roles:

1) To settle disputes among individuals, but only after private, voluntary arbitration has failed

2) To protect us from criminals

3) To protect us from foreign invaders

[RebelDog]

1) To settle disputes among individuals, but only after private, voluntary arbitration has failed

The ruling class squabbling over who owns what.


To protect us from criminals

They are the criminals and we need protecting from them. The British Government have just killed over 100,000 innocent people in Iraq and Afghanistan. The world needs protection from British government. They crimes throughout history are endless.


To protect us from foreign invaders

We would be forced to fight and protect them! They would sit back and sip champagne. I will not defend the British ruling class from another foreign ruling class, I will fight both.

[black magick hustla]

There is a difference between government and state.

Government could simply man the administrative tasks carried collectively by a group of people.

A State is the modern, hierarchic form of administration where a minority clearly imposes its authority to the mayority.

[Janus]

In an anarchist society (which ultimately any communist society will be) there will be no government as you describe it
It would still be a government of the people.


As soon as you talk of legitimacy, I tend to think of force being used against me because I dare to object. Legitimacy is a falsehood, a lie by those in power to those who are not. We do not need it!
I was talking about in general. That's what the thread was about.

[nightwatchman]

Thanks for the insight dissenter, after I read what you posted I did a little research of my own and after thoughtful contemplating Inow see the role of government in a totaly differnent way.

[BreadBros]

The historical material roots of government are that of an entity establishing or being given authority to coordinate the complexities of society. As the methods of human production change, so too does the form any social coordination takes. In the earliest human groupings, when humans subsisted via hunting and gathering, there was no governmental entity because every individual was responsible (more or less) for their own survival and aquisition of food. As agriculture and sedentary society developed, societies became complex, labor became increasingly specialized and divided and warfare became increasingly technical and based on technology, for all of these aspects increasingly complex governmental entities developed.

However, in every historical era, the form of society has been determined by its predominant ruling class, whether that takes the form of a dynastic chiefdom, the landowning classes, the aristocracy or the bourgeoisie. Among the uses of government is to ensure the survival and stability of said ruling class.

As for the monopolization of authority to use force. The origins of that lie in the fact that traditional methods of dispute-solution and preventing violence involve kinship or friendship bonds. However, our method of production and technology allows and demands for extremely high density human settlements in which such bonds do not exist. Therefore the state attempts to monopolize force to prevent and dissipate conflict among individuals. It also of course uses it to ensure its survival.

[Ol' Dirty]

If you mean the state, it is meant to protect the personal and property rights of its citizens.