The Role of Government/Politics

WillyBubba · 06-17-2007, 07:16 PM

First of all I'm not totally sure if this fits better here or in the forum for political debate and what not, but it seems to me this is a philosophical point and better off here. By the end of the post it's probably not an ethics thing, but I'll just leave it up to the mods and admins from here. Anyway...

The history may seem unnecessary, but I feel it's better to see exactly where I'm coming from and how the logic flows from the start.

Democracy can be traced all the way back to ancient Greece and Rome, however, for my purposes, it is only necessary to focus on it's development from about the year 1200 A.D. to the present. Why this year? Well, this is when the Magna Carta (Great Charter) was first proposed. This wasn't the first document to limit the power of the King by law but it fulfills the role of a poster boy quite well and I won't bother to attempt changing that.

So, with this charter people established that the government (in this case Kings and Emperors) are not free to do as they wish. Kings often claimed Divine Right, or that they are appointed by God and therefore free to do whatever they see right. The Magna Carta limited this, and eventually, nearly 600 years after this, people in general decided that the King doesn't even have Divine Right. 'We' realized that royalty rules simply by right of inheritance and the flexing of powerful autocracies and military muscle.

With the establishment of constitutions in France, the USA and England, to name the big ones, we established that the government derives its right from the people. Government has none of its own, only what the people (who do have rights) give up to it in order to live as safely or freely as they desire.

So the real question about government is not whether it is allowed to do something, as it isn't inherently 'allowed to do anything,' but rather, how much freedom are we willing to give up in order to be 'safe?' (as well as what exactly makes us safer, policy-wise)

Finally, I'd push for discussion on this question, as well as how this ties into classical ideological views about he left and right, neo-conservatism vs. classical conservatism, as well as libertarians vs. democrats.

**Ristaron** · 06-18-2007, 02:08 AM

So the question is "at what point do we break our own code of ethics in giving power to government for our safety?"

I'd say it depends on who's ethics we're talking about. Some people would prefer to live in a police-state because it's more secure. Others, which probably includes most of us here, would rather tell the government to get the fuck out when they start prying into our personal lives in the name of 'national security'.

The government is only bound by society's ethics, which are not universally accepted even in our society. Witness abortion, or stem cell research, or cloning. These are all issues that everyone has different views on, and feels differently about.

That's why we have the law, to serve and protect people and their freedoms. And enter where I believe the true crime starts, constitutional ammendments are pretty clearly unethical. You restrict freedoms, which the law is inherently intended to protect, not deny.

WillyBubba · 06-18-2007, 08:49 PM

Quote:

The government is only bound by society's ethics

And not even that. Sure, ideally the government, considering this is a democracy, would enforce what a majority of the people want. However, the government gets some power and seeks to obtain more. It is only bound by what it sees as its best course of action in order to keep the powers it currently has and gain more.So basically keep the people happy in order to distract them and take away more of their freedoms. My problem is, this seems highly illogical to me, as there is no overall goal or objective that I see. Sure, the person/people in power can enjoy that, but only for so long with our current government. So unless the next few administrations take steps to extend not only their powers, but the length of their terms, then I can't see the real benefit of subjugating a free people.

**Ristaron** · 06-18-2007, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillyBubba

And not even that. Sure, ideally the government, considering this is a democracy, would enforce what a majority of the people want. However, the government gets some power and seeks to obtain more. It is only bound by what it sees as its best course of action in order to keep the powers it currently has and gain more.So basically keep the people happy in order to distract them and take away more of their freedoms. My problem is, this seems highly illogical to me, as there is no overall goal or objective that I see. Sure, the person/people in power can enjoy that, but only for so long with our current government. So unless the next few administrations take steps to extend not only their powers, but the length of their terms, then I can't see the real benefit of subjugating a free people.

Don't take my quote out of context...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ristaron

The government is only bound by society's ethics, which are not universally accepted even in our society. Witness abortion, or stem cell research, or cloning. These are all issues that everyone has different views on, and feels differently about.

In other words, some people are fine with the government turning the country into a police state, because it's ethical to them. Thus, ethics in general are a moot point in the entire discussion. Hell, they're torturing people in Guantanamo Bay... and what attention is being brought to the crimes of the government? Not enough.

WillyBubba · 06-19-2007, 02:45 PM

Sorry, I was a bit confused as you only mentioned abortion, stem cell research and cloning later. I wanted to make sure your line of thinking wasn't just limited to those issues.