[Polopolop]

I think the state should take care of :
-Free and universal education
-Free and universal healthcare
-Army, firefighters, police
-railways, subways (highways can be private and work fine)
-energy generation, oil exploration etc

And leave the rest to the market.

I also believe there should be anti-monopoly laws

Basically, the state should make capitalistic competition fair, by allowing the sons of poor people to get a good education, and if they are smart enough, a title, and get rich, capitalism is the best we have, but the state is there to make capitalism tolerable.
Otherwise, eventually the peasants will kill the rich people

[imporesweemo]

Should governments provide credit cards or just Wiglaf?

[usaneisfiecup]

You think private railways can't work but private highways can?

[UMATURLIN]

I was thinking of city railways, I think it is better in a city, for trains, subways, buses, trams etc to be integrated, and that only the state can do that well.


Railways to travel from one city to another one, or to transport cargo, I think could be private with no problem.

[streMunford]

Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you.

[SeelaypeKet]

Originally posted by GePap
There is no inherent limit to government's duties, nor are there any actual inherent duties of "government."

[pheelixoss]

Originally posted by DaShi


But governments are created to serve certain needs of human society, hence inherent duties. The point of this thread is to discuss what these duties entail and whether governments should do more, hence the limits. No they are not. they came into existance human groups grew larger and wealthier, leading to specialization of activities. Its exists to manage power relationships in groups that have moved beyond what might be termed the natural limit you see in say tribal societies.

The Enlightenment idea that individual humans came about and formed government is nonsense.

Now, once the idea of government came into being and "civilization" spread, people started to create theories of government, but there are countless ones, all springing from different societies. What the "duties" fo government are is a society specific question, not a universal truth.

[Annevecenqp]

Originally posted by Slade Wilson
Individual humans form governments all the time over the last few hundred years and far before that. Lord.....

I thought I was clear, but obviously not.

The notion that GOVERNMENT as a thing came into existance because people came to gether to form such a thing is nonsense.

now, once you have complex civilizations, governments will come and go. The question posed is whether there is some theoretical duty that any government has. My statement is simple, what government there is is based on the underlying society, and what duties it may be thought to have are also based on the society being ruled.

[Fgunehjf]

Seriously, you can't make any universal statement that government has any specific duties or limitations, aside from serving the interests of those under its rule.

[Weislenalkata]

I agree with GePap

[AngelBee]

The fundamental purpose of the state (as embodied by the king) was pretty much fully enumerated by Kautilya. We still haven't really managed to reach that ideal.





Some choice quotes:

In the happiness of his subjects likes the king's happiness; in their welfare his welfare. He shall not consider as good only that which pleases him but treat as beneficial to him whatever pleases his subjects. {1.19.34}

The pursuit of [the people's] welfare as well as the maintenance of philosophic tradition, the Vedas and the economic well-being [of the society] are dependent on the sceptre wielded by the king. The maintenance of law and order by the use of punishment is the science of government. By maintaining order, the king can preserve what is already his, acquire new possessions, augment his wealth and power and share the benefits of improvement with those worthy of such gifts. {1.4.3}

The progress of this world depends on the maintenance of order and the [proper functioning of] government.
Some teachers say: 'Those who seek to maintain order shall always hold ready the threat of punishment. For, there being no better instrument of control than coercion.' Kautilya disagrees for the [following reasons.] A severe king [meting out unjust punishment] is hated by the people he terrorises while one who is too lenient is held in contempt by his own people. Whoever imposes just and deserved punishment is respected and honoured. A well-considered and just punishment makes the people devoted to dharma, artha and kama [righteousness, wealth and enjoyment]. Unjust punishment, whether awarded in greed, anger, or ignorance, excites the fury of even [those who have renounced all worldly attachment like] forest recluses and ascetics, not to speak of householders. When, [conversely,] no punishment is awarded [through misplaced leniency and no law prevails], then there is only the law of fish [i.e., the law of the jungle]. Unprotected, the small fish will be swallowed up by the big fish. In the presence of a king maintaining just law, the weak can resist the powerful. {1.4.5-15}

Only the Rule of Law can guarantee security of life and the welfare of the people. {1.5.2}

[Nfxutkpa]

Who said it's wrong?

[egexgfczc]

Originally posted by BeBro


Usually there's that constitution thingy. Well, unless you're a British aggressor (who do that by law somehow - proof of their evilness I'd say) But even they have that Magnet Carter thingie.

[blogforlovxr]

Originally posted by aneeshm
By maintaining order, the king can preserve what is already his, acquire new possessions, augment his wealth and power and share the benefits of improvement with those worthy of such gifts. {1.4.3} Maybe I don't know enough about hindu civilization to understand this.

[deethythitoth]

Originally posted by GePap


No they are not. they came into existance human groups grew larger and wealthier, leading to specialization of activities. "governments are created to serve certain needs of human society,"

Its exists to manage power relationships in groups that have moved beyond what might be termed the natural limit you see in say tribal societies. "hence inherent duties"

The Enlightenment idea that individual humans came about and formed government is nonsense. No one is saying this!

Now, once the idea of government came into being and "civilization" spread, people started to create theories of government, but there are countless ones, all springing from different societies. What the "duties" fo government are is a society specific question, not a universal truth. Not asking for a universal truth. However, if someone can reasonably argue one, then fine. It's perfectly fine to go into different societies and their different needs.

You entered this thread with all of these preconcieved notions that simply aren't there. You're so obsessed with trying to prove how schmart you are, that you've wasted several posts arguing something obvious and unnecessary. As I said before, you've said a whole lot of nothing.

[PypeDeft]

I think DaShi is right. If govt exists to manage power relationships, that is an inherent duty.

[affewheillMapew]

A priori limits on the power of the State? You're courting anarchy my friend!

[Keyblctt]

Originally posted by DaShi
Not asking for a universal truth. However, if someone can reasonably argue one, then fine. It's perfectly fine to go into different societies and their different needs. Your question was not framed in that way. It made no mention of any particularity.

You get answers based on the questions you ask. Want better answers? don't ask **** questions.

[Drysnyaty]

Originally posted by GePap


Your question was not framed in that way. It made no mention of any particularity. Exactly.

You get answers based on the questions you ask. Want better answers? don't ask **** questions. Don't take your frustrations out on me. No one else had a problem understanding it. I just wanted to open up a discussion on this topic. You just wanted to show off your ANS.