Words: 2344
The thing that separates a government from any other civic or social organization is that governments may legally Initiate the use of force. Only government has this power, which Is called the police power. And politics Is nothing more than deciding how this power should be used. That’s why, when Chairman Mao Sedona said, “All political power comes from the barrel of a gun,” he was not philosophizing or speaking in abstract. He was stating a basic axiom. Bear that in mind. Any time you elect a legislator, mayor, or other government official, you are hiring them to hold and use a gun on the people, including yourself.
They may not do so directly, but anyone with the power to pass laws or write regulations has the power to decide when the police should come after you. And “you are disobeying a law” Is always a reason enough. Government Is the same thing, only in groups. The point of having a government is to organize force for the defense of a group or community (be it a neighborhood, a town, a city, a state, or a nation). And the government is us. So at what point does it become justice for the government to do by force that which it is unjust for us to do by force?
And they do not care whether it is an autocracy, an oligarchy, a democracy, a spot, or a republic except for those who want to use the police power to compel others to do their will. If we are going to have a Just society, we must limit government to its core functions: protection of life, protection of liberty, protection of property, punishing those who transgress those rights, and gaining restitution from them for their victims. First of all, usually only the government is expected to provide some urban infrastructure, fundamental services, basic calamitousness like electricity, bore holes, hospitals, good roads etc.
People pay the tax to bring the government come into existence and maintain its operation. Therefore, they deserve to get all services which are provided by the government. Authorities could require the inhabitants to Join the army when the nation’s interest is seriously threatened, for example, in order to protect its country. Politicians could also send troops to protect people when emergency situations occur: tsunami, floods, and forest fires, to name but a few. However, it is more likely that the government should only pay attention to some services and let the citizens take part in developing the country.
To begin with, it is generally believed that it would be a waste of money if the government had to engage a wide range of services. A lot of people would be employed in order to operate these businesses, meaning that people would have to pay more and more taxes. Furthermore, it is often claimed that the quality of services which are provided by democracies is not as high as expected. As a consequence of this, it would be wise to encourage private companies to Join the market and provide some services which do not relate to national security such as entertainment, arts and so on.
Secondlyџoverspent as rule-maker or law-maker and umpire. The need for government in these respects arises because absolute freedom is impossible. However attractive anarchy may be as a philosophy, it is not feasible in a world of imperfect men. Men’s freedoms can conflict, and when they do, one man’s freedom must be limited to preserve another’s as a Supreme Court Justice once put it, “My freedom to move my fist must be limited by the proximity of your chin. “let is important to distinguish the day-to-day activities of people from the general customary and legal framework within which these take place.
The day-to-day activities are like the actions of the participants in a game when they are playing it; the framework, like the rules of the game they play. And Just as a good game requires acceptance by the players both of the rules and of the umpire to interpret and enforce them, so a good society requires that its members agree on the general conditions that will govern relations among them, on some means of arbitrating different interpretations of these conditions, and on some device for enforcing compliance with the generally accepted rules.
In both games and society also, no set of rules can prevail unless most participants most of the time conform to them without external sanctions; unless that is, there is a broad underlying social consensus. But we cannot rely on custom or on this consensus alone to interpret and to enforce the rules; we need an umpire. These then are the basic roles of government in a free society: to provide a means whereby we can modify the rules, to mediate differences among us on the meaning of the rules, and to enforce compliance with the rules on the part of those few who would otherwise not play the game.
The major problem in deciding the freedoms of different individuals. In some cases, the answer is easy. There is little difficulty in attaining near unanimity to the proposition that one man’s freedom to ruder his neighbor must be sacrificed to preserve the freedom of the other man to live. In other cases, the answer is difficult. In the economic area, a major problem arises in respect of the conflict between freedom to combine and freedom to compete. What meaning is to be attributed to “free” as modifying “enterprise”?
In the United States, “free” has been understood to mean that anyone is free to set up an enterprise, which means that existing enterprises are not free to keep out competitors except by selling a better product at the same price or the same product at a lower price. In the continental tradition, on the other hand, the meaning has generally been that enterprises are free to do what they want, including the fixing of prices, division of markets, and the adoption of other techniques to keep out potential competitors.
Perhaps the most difficult specific problem in this area arises with respect to combinations among laborers, where the problem of freedom to combine and freedom to compete is particularly acute. The role of government is to defend our lives, our liberty, and our property, from those who would violate them, and to punish those who do so by making them pay us restitution. When a government limits itself to this, people are pleased with it, to the very limited extent that they have to think about it at all.
And they do not care whether it is an autocracy, an oligarchy, a democracy, a despot, or a republic, except for those who want to use the police power to compel others to do their will. Thirdly, the relevance of government in the development of a society cannot be over-emphasized as it is very important particularly in the economy. Apart from the fact that the government regulate all the economic activities in the country, they are also in charge of instructing the central bank which is the apex bank in any country when to mint money and when to regulate the amount of money in circulation by their control activities.
Thus, doing this they are making the economy grow which is one of the most important aims of the government of any country whether developed countries or developing countries. Also, Government responsibility for the monetary system has long been recognized. It is explicitly provided for in the constitutional provision which gives Congress the power “to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin. There is probably no other area of economic activity with respect to which government action has been so uniformly accepted.
This habitual and by now almost unthinking acceptance of governmental responsibility makes thorough understanding of the grounds for such responsibility all the more necessary, since it enhances the danger that the scope of government will spread from activities that are, to those that are not, appropriate in a free society, from providing a monetary framework to determining the allocation of resources among individuals.
Therefore,the organization of economic activity through voluntary exchange presumes that we have provided, through government, for the maintenance of law and order to prevent coercion of one individual by another, the enforcement of contracts voluntarily entered into, the definition of the meaning of property rights, the interpretation and enforcement of such rights, and the provision of a monetary framework.
Another important relevance of government in security it gives to children, the less privileged (action through government on paternalistic ground)as embedded in the constitution. Without these securities it will be difficult for any society to develop. We have seen cases of child abuse through rapes, molestations etc. They attain a level of freedom that makes it difficult for their rights to be traumatized because of they are protected “sort off’ and it is backed up n the laws of the society or in the constitution.
All these are the essential roles government do to develop their respective societies. We do not believe in freedom for madmen or children. The necessity of drawing a line between responsible Individuals and others is inescapable, yet it means that there is an essential ambiguity in our ultimate objective of freedom. Paternalism is inescapable for those “homo we designate as not responsible. The clearest case, perhaps, is that of madmen.
We are willing neither to permit them freedom nor to shoot them. It would be nice if we could rely on voluntary activities of individuals to house and care for the madmen. But I think we cannot rule out the possibility that such charitable activities Nil be inadequate, if only because of the neighborhood effect involved in the fact that I benefit if another man contributes to the care of the insane. For this reason, we may be willing to arrange for their care through government. Lilied offer a more difficult case. The ultimate operative unit in our society is the family, not the individual. Yet the acceptance of the family as the unit rests in considerable part on expediency rather than principle. We believe that parents are generally best able to protect their children and to provide for their development into responsible Individuals for whom freedom is appropriate. But we do not believe in the freedom of parents to do what they will with other people.
The children are responsible individuals in embryo, and a believer in freedom believes in protecting their ultimate rights. There is no avoiding the need for some measure of paternalism. As A. V Dicey rote in 1914 about an act for the protection of mental defectives, “The Mental Deficiency Act is the first step along a path on which no sane man can decline to enter, but which, if too far pursued, will bring statesmen across difficulties hard to meet without considerable interference with individual liberty.
Lastly, one of the most important relevant government plays in the development of any society is n the educational sector. The government of every society or country make cautious efforts to make sure that the educational sector does not lag behind. Because they believe that children are the leaders of tomorrow, it is known world-wide that they need sound education to build a developed society and to foster growth generally and be up there among the top nations of the world.
The role of government cannot be over emphasized in this aspect because of the role that education particularly plays in the development of the societies, if we were to look at the top nations of the Nor we would see that they have great historical backgrounds, so the government of every society or government know they have a lot of work to do to develop their captives societies by the establishment of primary or elementary, secondary or high schools and above all tertiary institutions like universities.
That is the major reason why a lot of government institutions provide free education for its citizens. Education is a very important tool for governments seeking to maintain the status quo. Also, it is generally accepted that government should control the be so controlled. ) Thomas Jefferson, although opposed to big government in general, Nas in favor of public education: “If the people don’t have enough information to Meld power correctly, don’t take the power from them.
Give them the information! ” His advocacy of public education was probably quite innocent and well-intentioned, but we must remember that Hitler also called for a government monopoly on education In conclusion, it cannot be denied that the government’s role in providing services for the society is very important; however, it would be essential for private groups to take part in providing some quality services.
Politicians should Inspire more and more individuals or groups to take part in developing the country. CONCLUSION. The relevance of government in the development of any society cannot be over emphasized due to the different task they perform which ordinarily cannot be performed by individuals. A government which maintained law and order, provide the basic amenities like building hospitals, schools, bore holes, roads, etc. Fined property rights, served as a means whereby we could modify property rights and other rules of the economic game, adjudicated disputes about the interpretation of the rules, enforced contracts, promoted competition, provided a monetary framework, readily regarded as sufficiently important and which supplemented private charity ND the private family in protecting the irresponsible, whether madman or child Important to Justify the roles of government in the development of societies, such a government would clearly have important functions to perform.