by PLAYER57832 on Sun Jun 22, 2008 3:47 pm
To get back to the original question (now having actually read the whole thread ...)
Ironically, Machiavelli and Marx both agree on one point. The government needs to do enough to keep folks happy without causing revolt.
Specifically, adding in a good deal of modern science and modern values:
Government should be run by laws, decided more or less by the people. For the most part, given the right information, folks will make reasonable choices. Not perfect ones, but reasonable. That's democracy.
BUT, since few people have the time, energy or knowledge to be truly informed, it helps to designate others who (hopefully) are those things ... ergo representative democracy, or republic.
AND, because individuals will naturally try to grab power for themselves, against the interests of society as a whole (greedy, not necessarily evil, sometimes just plain blind). LAWS are needed to reign in the abusers. We have a constitution and a system of checks and balances that more or less work pretty well.
I would add to this that while free commerce is good, we need to establish a few things. A universal education system for one. Necessary both for true decent commerce and for democracy. Reigns on the externalities. This is a big one. It means competitions is OK, monopolies not. Since the best competitors will "naturally" tend toward monopolies without an external check, we need laws. Pollution hurts us all. (there may well be debate over what is pollution and how bad various types harm us, but I believe that basic idea is accepted universally). However, there is no direct "check" on polluting. A company can pollute and not come to any harm itself... another externality.
Those are pretty accepted externalities. I would put base employee wages into this category. Employees need to work and don't actually have true freedom of movement or choice at the lowest ends (at the upper ends, yes, but not at the level of minimum wages). Skill is often a very real limiter, as is education and location. I consider it crass to just announce that folks can live where they choose and that anyone who works hard and make the "correct" choices will go far. For one thing, those ideas typically only take straight income into account. Am I being lazy because I stay home with my children? I am not directly contributing to society, after all. (and note, I actually would prefer to work elsewhere, but many women don't) Or, am I providing a greater benefit to society by ensuring that my children get the best care possible and have a better chance, therefore of becoming happy and productive citizens?
I would also add healthcare, but there is already a whole thread on that topic.
Finally, I would add some qualifications to pollution. Pollution is typically thought of as chemicals or perhaps noise. BUT, I would argue that we actually have innate needs for something I will call "beauty" though I know it leaves me wide open to ridicule. It is a hard to define something that makes us just enjoy being in one place instead of another. I would suggest that at some point, we need limits on just how much another person is allowed to impact the environment of another. In truth, these are actually among the most highly defended qualities and, perhaps ironically (because they are considered somewhat "soft", not true "needs") heavily regulated. But I just put forward that there is a real need there that exists ... while leaving a definition open.
