Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
The Role of Government
Lots of kids my age spend their time sifting through indecipherable text messages and blasting awful music. I on the other hand find joy in the simpler aspects of life. I love to read, and over the past few months, I have focused on political writings. Marx, Hayek, John Stuart Mill, Jefferson, Paine, and a host of others. The question whose answer I am most concerned with is thus; what is the role of government?
It's a very direct question and to the practical minded, I think it supersedes vague questions like "where did I come from?" and "why am I here?" Those questions may be all well and important, but don't have near the reaching impact as does the question I'm raising.
So, what do you think? Should government be, as Paine and Jefferson thought, a sort of necessary evil; one that is best kept on a tight leash and strictly limited, or as George W. Bush once said, "When someone hurts, the government should move to help." Perhaps it should even do more than that? Redistribution? Corporatist involvement in the economy? Welfare? Drug control?
It's a very direct question and to the practical minded, I think it supersedes vague questions like "where did I come from?" and "why am I here?" Those questions may be all well and important, but don't have near the reaching impact as does the question I'm raising.
So, what do you think? Should government be, as Paine and Jefferson thought, a sort of necessary evil; one that is best kept on a tight leash and strictly limited, or as George W. Bush once said, "When someone hurts, the government should move to help." Perhaps it should even do more than that? Redistribution? Corporatist involvement in the economy? Welfare? Drug control?
0
Comments
Palzang
Inspite of calling yourself 'Knight of Buddha' I see very little in your posts and comments that refers or adheres to Buddhist premise.
Are you in fact still following Buddhism as a calling?
It seems by the timbre of some of your posts that it's actually somewhat removed from your mind at the moment....
I would hope I'm wrong.
Government by nature is violent. It's means are violent -- war, taxation -- and the most powerful people have often -- far, far too often --use it to their ends: quashing business competition, getting society to subsidize waste and loss (EPA, TARP, Bank bailouts, backroom political dealings, etc), union-busting, union influenced political trade-offs (UAW and GM bailouts), corporate agricultural subsidies (taxpayer money given to the rich), etc. etc.
I could go on, and what I've mainly talked about is the economical side of it.
But truthfully, this is a decent question: what is the role of government?
Personally, its hard to justify using it as a means of social engineering, since that entails the use of government's grievous and violent means of order.
Thich Nhat Hanh, if I may paraphrase, has said that in order for any future on Earth to be possible, we're going to have to each, individually, open our eyes and minds and hearts to the interconnectedness, the interbeing of our society, people, animals, plants, and natural resources.
Thats where I say: it can't be done on a mass scale through the use of the political and government tools -- which I'll reiterate: are, to me, violent means. Yes, it's a very charged word I'm using -- violence -- and may be hard to take in. But I want to take it to a more logical extreme to better describe what I'm trying to show.
I hope this encourages more discussion. My argment is hardly fool proof, and I want to mention that. I'm still very much forming my opinion on this.
Please discuss/think/ponder.
Thank you.
Certainly any system of organization can be abused by greedy, selfish or power hungry individuals, but they can also provide the framework for constructing a civil society based on the principles of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness if utilized in the proper manner—which I think depends entirely on the level of citizen involvement and participation. In essence, I fear an all-powerful state, but I don't see government in and of itself as a problem; I see it as the platform by which a civil society can grow and change in a positive way through democratic means as long as the people are the ones holding the power and not just a select few.
For example, I think the "government of the people, by the people, for the people" was negatively impacted the day corporations were essentially granted personhood, which effectively extends certain constitutional protections to corporations such as the ability to contribute to political campaigns, e.g., the way elections are currently conducted and financed in the U.S., the average individual can't compete with the lobbying power of large multinational corporations, thereby severely limiting their voice in the political process.
I guess I like the idea of government as an extension of the community where everyone is involved with the planning and implementation of public policy. I'd like it to have a place in the self-defense of the community (through a voluntary army if possible as I believe in the right of people not to fight if doing so conflicts with their ethical, moral, religious, etc. views), but certainly not aggressive militarism. I'd like it to refrain from criminalizing natural substances, intoxicating or not, because I think that's just stupid. I like the idea of having democratically controlled public agencies, cooperatives, etc. involved with production and distribution, which I guess is a form of government but not the government per se. And I'd like it to be able to provide basic social needs to those who are in need.
That said, I don't think limiting the size and power of government is a bad thing. The bigger, more powerful and centralized a government or state is, the greater the potential threat to individual liberties if it were to become dominated by tyrants. So while I don't think there's a perfect form of government, I do think that government will have an important role to play in the foreseeable future. (I have an idealistic hope that any such government will become obsolete at some point in the future, but I'm not going to hold my breath.)
I have no religious allegiances. I still go to Mass on the weekends for the sake of familial order, but other than that, I do not pray to or worship anything. I have taken some important lessons from Buddhism over the years. Namely, the first noble truth. As Dostoyevsky said, "To live is to suffer."
That said, I'm curious to know of Buddhism's take on the role of government in society. I have never come across anything in which he spoke of on the subject, though I could be wrong.
My own personal view is that government should exist to settle disputes (courts), build roads, provide for the common defense (police/military), and very little else. I believe that the less centralized government is, the better. I think societies are better off that vest more power in the local and state governments than bohemoth federal governments. Ultimately, people should be left alone to their own devices provided they aren't infringing on the rights of others. They should be free from violence and excessive taxation.
I notice that you left Aristotle off your list. That is a very interesting omission in that its effect is to phrase the question wrong. The Aristotelian way of inquiry would ask, "What makes for good government?" not what the role of government should be. When you ask what the [proper] role of government is, you are really asking about the basis for that government, i.e., what its value, or relevance, is ultimately based upon.
The underlying basis for all government, it turns out, is good self-government. If the emperor has no clothes he should be the first to know or else his empire fades away and another stouter overlord comes to plow him asunder.
Confucius taught that a calm mind drawn forward into the fray of life with beneficence and equanimity was poised for dealing justly in all situations. All ethical teachers teach that self-control is the primary virtue and the failure to achieve control over self is pretty much the end of the road.
Self control is the very beginning of good government. If one can't even control his or her own behavior, how can other more complex situations be dealt with responsibly and fairly?
I think Palzang was onto something interesting above about the Lord Buddha. If the Noble Eightfold Path is not an enlightened form of self-government, I don't know what is. It's a recipe, also, for respect. All components spell "right respect" to me, at their core. That sense, or faculty, of respect conveys to me a sense of earnest listening to and caring about the needs of all others.
If that's all you've taken from Buddhism then I'm afraid you've entirely missed what the Buddha taught.
'To live is to Suffer' is somewhat different to "Life is Dhukka"...
the word Dhukka has mildly different meanings depending on context, and the word 'suffering' as a direct and fixed translation is not stringently accurate.
It's a bit like the word 'Post'.
What does that mean?
It depends on the context.....
Really, KoB, is this it?
Whilst we clever, wise people know and assert that the First Noble Truth has a wider and deeper meaning than simple suffering, it is worth noting what Master Thich Nhat Hanh has to say:
Thus, KoB is in a venerable tradition, even if we disagree with him. And, disagreeing with him as I do too, it must be my task to show him that the First Truth cannot be understood alone, without the other Three. The Buddha taught, after all, that Nirvana (Nibbana) rather than suffering (dukkha) is one of the Three Dharma Seals, i.e. that joy is a reality and the result of the ending of dukkha.
Thank you for elaborating and extending.
I made that omission, and I'm pleased you concluded.
Yup.
In my conversations with those who know little of Buddhist thought, I am constantly having to assert that we are not misery-guts, constantly banging on about suffering and stress. Those of us who have heard and shared HHDL's giggles or seen TNH's smile can only conclude that our practice leads to joy.