The Purpose of Government

Sex, money, and politics are three topics rarely found in public discussion. In fact, they are often labeled taboo topics. In this essay, however, I will be discussing one of these three topics—politics.  But I will not just be complaining about high taxes, long emergency room line-ups, or broken promises made by political leaders. I will be answering a question that is the basis of any political discourse– what is the purpose of government? Without a well-developed opinion to this question, ones statements on political issues are mere thoughtless banter. That being said, in order to answer the question of what the purpose of government is, my essay will briefly describe how the government is to view human nature; argue that the purpose of government is to allow citizens to pursue passions; and identify current problems with Canadian government while providing possible solutions to these problems.

The only conclusion that the government may draw about human nature is that it can be both good and evil, because an improper assumption of either would have vast repercussions on the stability and growth of a state. For example, if one were to develop a state manifesto under an improper assumption that humans, by nature, are good, then one would have put too much trust in the hands of malevolent and self-serving citizens. On the other hand, if one assumes that individuals, by nature, are evil, then one would assert many unnecessary restraints on benevolent and altruistic people, which would hinder their pursuit of passions.  Furthermore, the assumption that humans are good and evil is not contrary to experience; it can be drawn from a simple analysis of society. In a society you have individuals that steal, cheat, and murder; however, you also have individuals that are honest, caring, and giving. There is not one individual that is entirely good or entirely evil; there is simply each individual responding to social situations and the laws set up by the state. Therefore, the state must be established in such a way that it nurtures the good of human nature.

The purpose of government is to provide a state that allows citizens to pursue their passions. By facilitating this individuals in the state will be productive and happy: they will be productive because the pursuit of passions provides personal incentives, and happy because they have the freedom to pursue interests.

The paragraph above could be argued by suggesting that not all individuals should be able to pursue their passions. For example, an individual like Pol Pot; Pol Pot’s passions were vindictive and destructive; therefore, he should not have been able to freely pursue them. This point is valid and it brings me to one of the major responsibilities of government: to promote and create progressive individuals— a progressive individual is one who follows his/her passions while creating and nurturing other individuals’ passions. In other words, a progressive individual understands that the best way to ensure one’s self-flourishing is to ensure the flourishing of your community. With this principle at the foundation of a state, the state will not develop individuals like Pol Pot because the idea of forced labour camps would be considered suppressive. Another example of an individual that would not flourish in a progressive state would be individuals that pay employees less than a living wage. By paying employees less then a living wage one is putting humans in harmful and suppressive situations that are contrary to community flourishing. Therefore, one of the major purposes of government is to eliminate the individualistic and regressive mind set and nurture the progressive.

One way that the government can nurture progressive individuals is to provide tax breaks and business incentives to their companies. By allowing their companies to have the best chance to prosper, the government is making it logical and feasible to have a company that encourages the creation and pursuit of passions. Another way to create more progressive individuals is to develop an education system that encourages children to develop progressive community strengthening qualities. The Government can create an education system that doesn’t support individualistic behaviour. For example, currently children are taught that if it is not your mess then don’t clean it up, or if they are forced to clean it up, they do so with little explanation as to why—“Because I told you too.” Children should be taught at a young age that if you clean up another child’s mess you will not only personally benefit from a clean play area, but the whole class will benefit and praise your good deed. Our education system needs to be built in such a way that it changes ones individualistic thought processes from “I do what is good for me,” to “I do what is good for me and my community.” If children were taught to think this way at a young age, any action contrary would seem alien. It is Individualism that is creating the apathy in the western world, which in turn is creating the destruction of our world and the third world countries we are so violently exploiting. The idea that it is not my problem is incorrect. It is our problem because we live in this world and are part of its community. Therefore the purpose of Government is to change this mentality. We are not individuals that make up a whole; we are a whole which is made up of individuals. People need to begin thinking as such, and a good way to do that is by changing our current business mind set and developing school systems that nurture this idea of the progressive individual. By doing this, individuals like Pol Pot and businessmen that pay workers less than a living wage will have less of a chance to develop.

Individuals like Pol Pot and immoral businessmen are regressive individuals. A regressive individual is one who hinders the pursuit of other people’s passions for the pursuit of their own. In other words, regressive individuals make people dependent on their progress and wellbeing, which in turn suppresses peoples passions and slows down the progression of the overall state—forced labour is never as efficient or progressive as labour done by ones free will because it supresses the one thing that creates progress—passion. Another one of the dangers of a regressive individual is their potential ability to influence the governmental process and, potentially, overthrow it—the more people a regressive individual makes dependent on them, the more power a regressive individual has. An example of this can be found in the documentary Who Killed The Electric Car. In this documentary, big oil supressed the development of a vehicle that could have had a highly positive impact on the world’s carbon footprint (twenty five percent of green house gasses in the atmosphere comes from transportation). This car, however, threatened the lucrative pay-checks of oil CEOs and individual’s incomes that were dependent on oil companies. Ergo, the progression of a more sustainable globe was hindered by regressive individual’s desire to control the market and their mass amount of dependents. One may respond to this statement by saying that it is better to keep employment levels high than reduce green house gas emissions. This, however, is an oversight of the job potential that could have been created through the manufacturing and developing of this new technology. All in all, it is the purpose of government to control the power of a regressive individual because they hinder the pursuit of individuals’ passions and the progresses of the state.

Lastly, the purpose of government is to remain in constant conversation with its people. This can be done through annual council meetings, online voting, etc., but without communication, the government will not be able to identify progressive and regressive individuals or supply services for individuals to flourish. Furthermore, by remaining in constant conversation citizens will realize that they are dependent on the government to create these situations. With this realization, the citizens will begin to realize that the relationship is one of mutual servitude: the citizen provides the government with helpful feedback on their living situation, and the government attempts to improve it. Without the development of the idea that citizen and government are working together, the state will fall apart because either the government, or regressive individuals, will become too powerful and suppressive.

The problem with Canada and our government is that we have lost the idea of mutual servitude. However, it is difficult to know which side is more to blame. As citizens, we have totally abandoned the idea that we need to be involved in politics. We vote once every four years and then leave it to the government, relying on an unwarranted trust that the government knows and understands the needs of all its citizens. This is preposterous. However, because of the welfare state that we have created, the government has begun to think that citizens need the government more than the government needs the citizen. As citizens we have become dependent on government for everything and complain to friends when taxes are high or the wait at the clinic was long. We, however, have no intention of ever informing the government of our opinions; we just sit and wait. Consequently, the government has taken it upon itself to provide what they think our needs are by judging their own need, which are not ours, and which has created the nurturing of regressive individuals that have the largest amount of subjects (citizens) below them, because what is good for them must be good for everyone else considering they control everyone else.

We change this by returning to the idea of mutual servitude. We need to voice our opinions more often—social media has made this increasingly possible. For example, the organization of the people to overthrow Hosni Mubarak was largely multimedia social movement. In Canada we do not have to go as far as this, but we need to inform our government on how they can make our lives better, on how they can allow us to pursue our passions. One may say that full citizen involvement is terrifying given that most citizens are so ill informed, but citizens are so ill informed because they feel as though their opinion does not matter or that their opinion is suppressed by regressive individuals. However, if we begin to expose the regressive individuals and poor leaders of our country there will be a natural progression of citizen involvement. This whole situation is like a new voice entering a conversation. At first it may be dismissed on the grounds of being unfamiliar, but if it continues to talk and learn from the conversation it will be able to have input one day. Therefore as citizens we need to inform the government that our needs are not the same needs as theirs and that the regressive individuals they put in charge are actually negatively affecting the growth of the community.

The purpose of government is to allow citizens to pursue their passions. The government can accomplish this by supporting progressive individuals and encouraging constant engagement between citizens and government. By doing this the outcome will be a high quality of life for the citizens and a progressive state. One of the ways in which our own government and citizens have failed is through the loss of the idea of mutual servitude. Citizens and government need to realize that with communication, both parties are able to fulfill their duties.