Government: Too much? Too little? Just right?
What is the proper role of government?
It is an unalterable truth that no matter the form of government, a government is dependent upon the people it governs for its existence. Without people, a government is a useless construct. Governments and nations need people.
For this reason, governments exist not for the purpose of dictating rules to people, but to serve the people, to protect them, to provide for them equally. While the creation of rules by which a nation may be governed is part and parcel of governing any body of people, it is not the only reason a government exists. Governments need the people they govern as a source of purpose. People do not require governments for the same reason. People are entirely capable of finding purpose without guidance.
Long ago, people chose to follow the guidance of whoever was most inclined to protect them from neighbors both far and near. This can most clearly be seen in systems of fealty. From lowest to highest, people swore allegiance to whomever seemed likely to offer them protection and order. By giving their allegiance and promise of service to lord or king, people were assured that they would be protected from invaders and malicious neighbor alike. In this sense, people chose to give their power to extract vengeance to a chosen leader who would act as an impartial judge of the situation. The leader became the symbol of the many. Without the faith of those under him, a leader is just one man. But with the support of the masses, a leader or government is elevated to a higher, more than mere mortal, status.
Clearly, the place of any government is to serve the people who reside within its territories and pay it fealty (or taxes). Without the people, there is no government. Governments govern by the will (or apathy) of the people. If people ever decided to revolt, as has happened on numerous occasions in numerous countries, the government has the option of becoming even more oppressive or capitulating to the demands of its people. In this way, governments are very much like unions in that they must negotiate with others for the benefit of all. But still, the government exists as it is through the sufferance of the people who accept its leadership. And with that leadership, certain duties are expected... protection from outsiders, protection under the law from neighbors, certain liberties (inalienable rights) which are set down in law so there is no confusion... governments exist to organize and protect but not to control the people. Though their role fluctuations with circumstance, there should never be any question that governments would not exist but for the fact that their existence is convenient to the needs of the people.
May 11th
This is the second night of Lemuria.
In 1659, the Puritans of the Massachusetts Bay Colony banned all celebrations of Christmas in the New World after declaring the event to be a Pagan festival of superstition and "a great dishonor [sic] of God." In England, Christmas festivities had been banned by the Puritans seven years earlier. It was one year later, when Charles II was restored to the throne, that the law banning the celebration of Christmas was repealed.
The Eisheilige, or "Ice Saints," are noted from May 11th through the 15th in southern Germany. These "Strong Lords" bring unseasonably cold and/or wet weather. Their names, Mamertius, Pancratius (or Pancras), Servatius, Bonifatius, and Cold Sophie, are Christianized forms of the Swabian presiding spirits of the days. "Saint" Mamertius is honored today.
On the Isle of Man, Witches and Fairies are considered especially active. In Ireland, the Lunantishees are the fairy tribes that guard the blackthorn trees or sloes. No stick may be cut on the eleventh of November or May.
Today is the Guatemalan Rain Ceremony.
Comments (18)
So the state of the U.S. government right now is the fault of its own people. And how.
@BoureeMusique - The state of any governing body is the fault of its people, no matter what kind of government it is. It is always up the people what they will and will not accept in a leader. If a government is oppressive, as with a dictatorship, it is still up to the people whether they will put up with it or make sacrifices of their time and possibly their lives to improve things.
I've linked you
"We the people" need to talk. What we find in getting to know each other could change our nations in many ways. Your place or mine? That's one of the amazing things about the internet and connecting just like we are now. One person, one day, one piece of information at a time. Keep doing your stuff.
Well, here comes the BADBOY with his two cents. All the worlds are a mechanism working perfectly, yet never intended to be what man takes to be perfect. The role of government is to be realized illusionary. It is mere draping on what must be.
When Dali sat across from Franco in the famous photo used to condemn Dali, who was king?
@harmony0stars - Haha, but it is still easier for the people to point fingers at the government. You have to love that twist.
@BoureeMusique - I'm with Harmony on this one. The state of our government IS our fault on some level; if people understood the nature and meaning of government beyond simply a "system of regulation" in the first place, perhaps people would actually have a government that performs as we want.
However, to be honest, this "people" also refers to people in the colonial era, people who decided to forge our government in the first place, people in our government who allowed bad decisions to be made under their noses or on their watch. That's the problem with a global reference. "We the people" does not separate older generations, the people within the government or anyone working behind the scenes, no matter their ivory tower. So you may have had nothing to do with it...
...and you can't beat the system from inside. So there's not much you can do about it.
I have to say I agree that to some extent the state of the government is our fault. Since that is the case, we the people can also change the government, which is what I am sincerely hoping will happen this next election.
You have an amazing blog. I hope you don't mind if I sub to you!
The feudal system was always imposed from the top down, our imperfect, messy, democratic government is run from the bottom up - that's what makes it democratic.
One prime virtue of our present government is illustrated right here at this blog right now. I doubt the grumbles and complaints would be tolerated in some places (People's Republic of China, for example).Really, how much government to we want? A little less or a little more than we have now?What makes a government a Good government?@Jaynebug - We can only hope, and try harder.
Of course I don't mind if you sub to me. lol
@BADBOYDOOMDADDY - Of course, you are right. There is no such thing as perfection, but that doesn't mean we can't strive for it. It's not the destination that's important, but the journey. I'm not sure I understand your question about Dali though.
@Lord_Wu - Maybe you can't do anything from the inside, but that doesn't mean we're helpless. We're just not willing to take the steps required for change. We have jobs and things that we must do with our time... and protesting isn't one of them, unfortunately. If the whole country got riled up like they used to in the 60s and 70s and picketed Washington or had a "sit-in" or starved ourselves on the steps of Washington... well that would make our leaders look very bad in front of the rest of the UN... Not something they could sweep under the carpet like their other indiscretions.
@couldquitepossiblybeme - I know. Ironic... the only reason we point fingers at the government is because we have them on a convenient pedestal from which they are always falling.
@WenchyWoman - Thanks
@tychecat - The feudal system may have been imposed, but that doesn't mean the people didn't have a choice. Death or armed resistance was simply not a choice they were willing to make. It's always easier to go with the flow, but going with the flow makes you a slave. It doesn't matter if they call you slave, serf, or citizen. While it is true that our complaints might not be tolerated elsewhere, our right to complain has been safeguarded by the laws of our country. However, consider that many people were picked up during the Nixon administration for being "communists" and many people in this era are being held in Guantanamo Bay right now without any rights. We can complain, sure, but I'm not so stupid as to believe that if the government wanted to take me or anyone who has commented here into custody, it would do so whether it had just cause or not.
Laws are only good so long as those who are sworn to uphold them actually do. It all boils down to each individual's ability to separate him/herself from their national identity. I am an American, but I am also someone who knows right from wrong. I obey the laws of my country because I agree with them. But if my country told me to do something which went against its own laws or against my moral code, I'd be forced to go my own way. This is not true of some people. Some people will always follow orders and disavow responsibility for their actions.
So what makes a good government? A good government anticipates the needs of its people without infringing upon their rights or forcing them to abandon their values. A good government explains its actions when they conflict or seem to conflict with the values of its people or its own constitution and laws. A good government thinks first of how they can resolve things peacefully before thousands on both sides are killed in a useless war for oil. Half our current leaders should be tried for treason for the harm they've caused inside and outside our borders. The other half should be dismissed for incompetence.
@harmony0stars - There is a famous photo of Salvador Dali being received and honored by the Spanish ruler, Franco. It has been referred to by those who have wrongly claimed Dali to be political and a fascist. In the photo Dali, as he was known for, has the visual bearing of a king, and Franco, that of a man not quite sure of what he is doing. To many, that photo makes the point that politics has nothing at all to do with ruling man...and Salvador has everything to do with being a real king. It is the Daliesk kings in this world, the ones holding the reins of human culture (not politics), who determine all that can be.
One problem a modern multi-cultural nation like the U.S. faces is how to keep the desparate groups fairly well satisfied. If the U.S. was mostly just English farmers as was true of about half of the thirteen original states, then a lot of our government problems would dissappear, but even as early as the Revolution, there were already a great many citizens who did not see eye-to-eye with those rock-hard New England Puritans.
Actually, our government does a pretty good job of satisfying its citizen demands but there are two problems (at least). There is a built-in time delay before new leaders more compliant with citizen's present desires can be elected; two years for Congressmen, four years for President, and six years for Senators. This was deliberate so the country wouldn't go off half-cocked.Another problem is the tendency of Congress and the President to ignore minority attitudes and ideas, no matter how relevant, or even if the minority has become a majority as now seems to be the case; but the "Tyranny of the Majority" is still better than following the dictates of a single tyrant or small group of cronies.@tychecat - I still think we could a lot of good by adopting the British rule of "no confidence." I know our government has the ability to impeach, but that is in the hands of the government, not the people. Put the power to get rid of politicians who make a mockery of their position or simply abuse it into the hands of the American people and take it out of the hands of the politicians who seem often to have the mindset of us (politicians) against them (the American people).
A "pretty good job" is not good enough. I'm not willing to accept an imperfect system as "pretty good." If you settle for "pretty good," things will never get better. If you go around saying, "eh, things could be worse. This is pretty good. Let's settle for this." What you're really saying is, "That's okay guys. You don't have to try too hard. We'll settle for mediocrity instead of demanding earnest dedication and devotion to a better tomorrow."
Our system is not pretty good or good enough or better than some... it's a work in progress. Anytime someone sits back and accepts something as pretty good, what they're really saying is "I'm done. I'm not going to try any harder than this."
"In order to form a more perfect union...." implies imperfection - but we are trying and seem to be doing the job acceptable to most of us, however, we still admit imperfection.
Remember the Parliamentary system where members of parliament can propose and vote "No confidence" for the government headed by the Prime minister, which in turn would call for formation of a new government and possibly new elections, is still a process involving politicians. In the case of the British Parliamentary system, Parliament (the legislative body) is supreme with no checks and balances. It is NOT a federal system with divided powers between the central government and regional governments nor are the governing powers divided among Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. Parliament (Specifically the House of Commons) is it - even the British Constitution is unwritten and subject to change without the cumbersome ratification process the U.S. employs.@tychecat - I'm not saying adopt the entire parliamentary system, but there are good ideas in any system of government that can be adopted to suit our needs. This is the age of technology and information. I consider it a travesty that the citizens of this country (or any country) still have so little to do with how the country is run. Even if you counter with the fact that so few vote, the fact is so few vote because they don't see the benefit of it. We vote for representatives who have their own ideas about how things should be run which often runs counter to what the people who voted them in believe. The government could stand to turn some of its "decisions" over to the people instead of the (well paid) lobbyists of big business and pharmacology. At the very least, we should be able to say whether we want to go to war or stay at war and how the FDA does its job. I'd even settle for being able to vote on how my taxes are distributed to various groups. Do you know how much it rankles for a pacifist to have their taxes go to support a war they don't believe in? For a democracy, we really have very little to do with how our country is run.
I contribute a lot to various causes I believe in, bug my congressman and senators whenever the mood strikes me, and generally try to influence the government as much as I can. I support a lot of lobbying groups: Common Cause, Earth-justice Legal Defense Fund, ACLU, MoveOn, Audubon Society, Planetary Society, Nat. Wildlife Fed., World Wildlife Fund, Nature Conservancy, to name a few. None of these are "Big Business or Pharmacology. When I was teaching I did a bit of Lobbying myself in favor of Education (successfully, I rather immodestly add).
When you have a country of 300M people, it's pretty hard for the individual to be heard unless he is really really noisy or is a member of a noisy group. With all the shouting and money waving, it's a wonder we get anything done@tychecat - "Common Cause, Earth-justice Legal Defense Fund, ACLU, MoveOn, Audubon Society, Planetary Society, Nat. Wildlife Fed., World Wildlife Fund, Nature Conservancy, to name a few. None of these are "Big Business or Pharmacology. When I was teaching I did a bit of Lobbying myself in favor of Education (successfully, I rather immodestly add)."
= Fascism with a smiley face.
:)