What Is the Purpose of a Government?
Is it to rule the people? Or to represent them and provide for their needs?
If you ask ten people what the purpose of government is, you’ll get eleven different answers.
You’ll probably also spark a fistfight in the parking lot, but that’s beside the point.
Whether you see government as the enemy or as a foundation for a functional society depends on which quarter of the political spectrum you land on. Libertarians, for example, view government as a tool of control. They think that freedom for the individual is maximized if government management is minimized.
This is the same principle extolled by so-called ‘small government conservatives,’ who think that the bigger and broader your government is, the more bureaucratic its functioning, the less good it does. Specifically with regards to economic matters, of course—when it comes to making rules about sexual morality and women’s bodies, they want the government to lay down the law.
On the other side of the political spectrum, you see folks on the liberal side of the line. Modern-day liberals such as the Democratic party of the United States tend to be right-leaning in terms of economic policies, keeping the government out of business and favoring free-market capitalism. Minimal control.
They’re broader and more open on social issues and want the government to take a protective stance instead of a limiting one. They want human rights enshrined in the law, and punishments in place for those who violate those rights. Freedom of speech, but no freedom to discriminate.
Further left, you get Progressives; like yours truly.
From the progressive point of view, government should exist to serve the public. It should be broadly representative and truly democratic, reflecting the needs and desires of the wider public rather than the desires of the wealthy and powerful.
We agree with the liberals that the government ought to be protective in terms of social issues, but we disagree on the economy; we want regulations and harsher penalties for big businesses when they harm people.
I think if the government lets major corporations get away with poisoning a body of water that people depend on, then the government has failed in its duty to serve.
Higher taxes on big business, higher minimum wages to ensure prosperity and lift people out of poverty, stronger health and safety regulations and actual consequences for breaking the law—not just a fine and a slap on the wrist.
Many progressives—again, myself included— also believe that as long as the basic necessities of life are behind a paywall, then it’s impossible to claim that all citizens are treated equally. You can’t say that we have the right to life, and then force us to pay for medical care, and even the bare minimum of food and water required to survive.
As long as that’s the case, you automatically work from the assumption that the wealthy deserve life and the poor do not. If we can’t pay for to live, then we’re shit out of luck.
This is where the idea of the government providing for the people comes in.
Look, for example, at my article about how Finland is dealing with its homelessness problem; by putting an attitude of public service first, providing for the people’s basic need for shelter, they’ve virtually eradicated homelessness.
Imagine if that attitude were expanded to cover everything you need to survive.
Not luxuries, mind you. Enough food to make it through the week, yes. And not gruel, either—people should have good, nourishing meals. But they don’t need to be extravagant, and luxury goods and treats don’t need to be free.
You don’t need to eradicate business and a competitive market. You can still sell and buy in the system I’d love to see; you can even get rich. It’s just that your economic status shouldn’t be the difference between life and death.
That, to me, would be an example of a good government fulfilling its purpose.
That way, you don’t need to work to survive. People who have disabilities and can’t get jobs don’t need to fear losing their homes. People who want to live the traditional, stay-at-home wife life can do so; they wouldn’t need dual incomes just to barely scrape by.
People who lose their jobs or have abusive bosses don’t need to worry about losing their healthcare; they’re taken care of either way. They have the power to leave their workplace and seek better, more fulfilling employment elsewhere.
In Canada, I have that freedom. I am not limited by the need to keep workplace-offered healthcare. I’m only limited by my need to afford food, shelter and water.
I think that if you want to talk about freedom, the true freedom to live exactly how you want and with minimal government control, then that’s the baseline we should be working from.
From a progressive standpoint, the government should be working on ways to solve these issues with real, lasting, long-term change. It shouldn’t be mired in political pissing contests, vying for votes and hunting for power at the behest of the wealthy, at the expense of the average citizen.
That’s what we have now, in many parts of the world. I would say that it doesn’t fit the bill for a good, functioning government. It’s a corrupt, backward pile of ghouls in nice suits and corporate sponsorships.
So, what do I think the purpose of government is?
I define a proper government as a body of democratically elected representatives who are beholden to the public and exist to account for their needs and see to their protection from all threats, foreign and domestic.
I expect them to be accountable to the public, and held liable for any criminal acts they take, especially if it is to the detriment of the public good.
I expect a government to apply justice fairly and equally, without preferential treatment, and without accepting bribes to influence the results of elections or the process of codifying law.
I expect a government to see to the basic needs of its people, collecting fair taxation based on income brackets, and using those taxes for the benefit of all. I expect the wealthy and major corporations to be fairly taxed as well.
I believe that the purpose of a proper, functioning government is to ensure that all of its citizens can live good lives with freedom and dignity.
What do you think?
Solidarity wins.
I think you are right on. Although personally, I would throw free higher education in as well.
I honestly don't see your views as particularly progressive, I see them as being reasonable, common sense functions of a responsible government. As a United States citizen, I had naively assumed that a majority of Americans were enlightened enough to agree with you and I. Man, was I wrong!
All good points, if you can get people to agree to that. Instead, the world is heading in the other direction and leaving smaller, more liberal countries like Canada behind. I am looking at the current chaos that is the U.S. and asking myself, how much longer will my basic freedoms be viable now? We have already lost so much and will be losing a lot more quickly now and my wife and I are getting a little scared. I mentioned to some people in a Facebook group consisting of people living in Aroostook County, Maine, that maybe the most northern, eastern and western counties could be assimilated into Quebec and New Brunswick. A good portion of the people there all have relatives on both sides of the borders, and for people like me, I can trace recent ancestors from Canada. I have a grandfather on my mother's side who immigrated from Prince Edward Island. As my father was born in Washburn, Maine, Aroostook County, if Aroostook County were to be given to Canada, I wondered if I could apply for Canadian citizenship someday because of my grandfather and father's birth places, if things get really bad down here.
Food for thought as I think about your partner leaving New England to immigrate to New Brunswick. How many other people living in the northern U.S. border areas can claim recent Canadian ancestry or actual Canadian relatives in order to apply for immigration to Canada in the near future? Will Canada even recognize something like that with everything happening between the two countries now?