The Role Of Government

[foeofthelance]

The Role of Government as Seen Through the Eyes of a Bored Twenty Year Old

The federal government should play a role similar to that of a police force, in that it must provide a means of prevention and recourse for members of society who are wronged by other individuals, with wrongs and their consequences to be determined by the society in question, with judicial oversight to determine validity. The purpose of the legislature is to craft the laws, but not to interpret them, and is meant to serve the interests of the people, not anyone specific group. When so called minority causes begin to have champions, everything becomes a minority cause. The government is not supposed to solve squabbles between separate interests, but rather to provide a means for those interests to work out their own deals. Rather than creating an ever increasingly complex tangle of rules, it should provide a means of negotiation impartial to both sides. Only where a violation of the rights granted by the system occurs should a law be necessary. It is the responsibility of the Executive branch to ensure an orderly and effective means of running this government; so long as the rights of the people are not violated it should not worry about the means so much as the consequences. Failed programs should be terminated and replaced, not fixed or expanded.

The conflict faced by government is the depth of its role in common affairs. Modern candidates seek power, not progress, and are willing to promise goals which can only be accomplished through the expansion of their power. This places an unfair burden on the federal government, especially as consecutive generations of politicians seek to their own agendas, modifying or undoing the accomplishments of those who came before. To call this orderly chaos is unfair; there is nothing orderly about it. Instead ever increasing levels of bureaucracy are added to disguise the running conflicts that never seem to be resolved. Thus to be truly effective, higher levels of government should be given less responsibility. The federal government should have only three major areas of responsibility: security, financial, and mediation.

The Roles Expanded

Security- Just as each township and village has its own police force, so must the federal government act to ensure the welfare of the citizens. First, strong international presences through an unequivocal force of arms. This must be recognized for what it is: a means of defense rather than a means of destruction. As each successful government would be seeking a similar position it would be all too easy to fall into an arms race, and steps should be taken to prevent this. While the sharing of military technology with unfriendly hands would be terrible to consider, joint military operations so that each government might have some idea of the capabilities of its fellows would be useful, as well as a good way to promote constant investment in the forces necessary for defense. Finally, a strong intelligence initiative is important, so that those responsible for security are aware of changes both to and by a noted threat.

Financial- First, the government must provide a universally accepted currency of good value. This will in turn help ensure the financial ability of its citizens. In order to accomplish this the government must act more as a wise business man rather than as an over generous parent: willing to spend its money wisely, and even take a few risks, yet unwilling to just give it away to any who might ask. No one district or state should ever get back more than what it gives to the federal coffers, unless that money is being spent on a federal, and only a federal, project. This includes such things as new military bases, FBI offices, and other buildings necessary for the execution of federal programs.

Second, programs such as welfare and so called “universal healthcare” should be abolished. Any attempt to run such programs eventually turns them into political weapons, which does nothing more than defeat their intended purposes while at the same time crippling those who might find themselves dependent on those programs. Instead of welfare, a work substitute program, used to staff such things as custom and immigration agencies for those who are unable to find work, while funds for social healthcare initiatives should be invested into the hospitals directly, with only a few minor restrictions on how the funds might be spent, and even then those restrictions would be aimed at ensuring the money is spent on patients and their care, rather than on those running the operations. (It is acknowledged that there are those who are incapable of functioning in society, for whatever reasons. While the government should aid in financially supporting their care, it should not be allowed to dictate the terms of said care. That should be left to the communities where those individuals live, as there is likely to be an increase of specific interest from said communities.) A program such as Social Security is acceptable, as in this case the government should be acting as a bank, merely putting aside money earned by an individual for that individual’s later use. While finding ways for that money to grow through interest, the government should at no time be allowed to “loan” that money to itself.

Any funding left over after the above needs have been met should be reinvested into the communities from which it comes, with a small amount held in reserve for emergency relief situations, and for the easing and prevention of national debt. This would provide continued support for education, social programs, and similar constructs necessary for a healthy society could be funded, while specific problems and needs could be corrected and handled at the community level, as this is where it is most likely to be noticed, and easier to handle.

Mediation- The purpose of the courts is to rule in criminal matters, assign blame where blame must be assigned, and to negotiate settlements between two wronged parties. This should be left to the courts and the courts alone, to prevent special interest groups from trying to sway opinions. Law should be the tool by which disputes are framed, not decided. When the way to settle a dispute is to write a new law, it is likely to turn in favor of the group best able to influence the situation, whether or not they are in the right or wrong. The courts then, especially those elected, are most likely to be neutral, for a judge that seemingly serves a specific interest rather than that of the people is not likely to hold the bench for very long.

Finally, the federal government should only pass such laws as are necessary to ensure an equal status amongst the states. This follows on things such as abortion, drinking age, and regulation of interstate commerce. If one state denies a service then all states should deny the service; it also follows that if one state provides a service than all states should provide a service and that the federal government should decided between the two, preferably through national referendums, voted on during regular election cycles.

Please, criticize and critique. The entire point to writing this was so that I might discuss it with others.

[Guest Monsterking]

*sigh* dont we all wish the goverment could do those things but realisticly i dont think that is possible sorry dud for saying that but thats my opinion

Peace out man and to quote ric flair "WOOOOOO!!"