The debate "What should the role of government be" was started by
September 2, 2019, 5:37 pm.
26 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 8 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
JDAWG9693 posted 2 arguments to the agreers part.
Nemiroff posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
JDAWG9693, shubham90012, AritriiPaul1, thabiso, Shrivali_16 and 21 visitors agree.
YEET and 7 visitors disagree.
Govt should be as limited as ethically possible. Its role should be relegated to national security, and upholding individual rights. The US should slowly move to this by rolling back protectionism, deregulating industry, allowing the market and unions to negotiate labor rights, removing many barriers to immigration, taxing greenhouse gas generators as well as other environmental harms, rolling back subsidies, legalizing all small arms, federally legalizing marijuana,
psilocybin, and lsd, and cutting funding for the military up to the point of a capable navy, moderate ground forces, and maintaining special ops capabilities. All of these should be accomplished through scotus and congress
I think much of the world is having this problem. Trump in america, Borris Johnson in the UK are 2 other populist idiots that come to mind. Trump rode a cult of personality, Boris rode the Brexit insanity.
yeah and this could be seen as a challenge for democracy
where corrupt politicians with gifted oratory skills could manipulate large masses and benifiting from them
India is a perfect example
Some of the people wanted slavery. Alot of them did not. I agree that the government needs to do what it thinks is best for the people, even if they don't know what that is. Brexit is a good example of the people demanding something that is terrible for them.
But at the end of the day the government is there to represent the people. They are there to give them what they want and need. If they don't do that then they need to be removed and replaced with people who will.
However, there is an extent on what the government should allow. At one point, the people wanted slavery, but the government shouldn't have allowed it.
I think his point was that the government should do whatever the people want it to. So not anarchy.
I don't think he meant that the government should ask people directly every time it makes a decision, ie true democracy, but rather it's powers and responsibilities should be whatever the people want them to be.
For example, I think one of the responsibilities of the government should be to provide healthcare for it's people. Some people in some countries disagree with that.
No, that would be true democracy, which is arguably just as bad
anything the people want it to do.
in a democracy.