rf@wu1.UUCP (02/27/84)
Many moons ago, I solicited comments on:
1. What is a 'government'? How does it differ from other
types of organization?
2. What is the proper function of government?
There were five replies. Four of them stated that a government
was an organization with a monopoly on the use of physical force
-- surprising unanimity. The replies follow.
Randolph Fritz
----- mh3bc1!mdash -----
Government is that institution on which we bestow the right to
administer violence against those who threaten us.
The primary function of government is to use any means, up to and
including physical violence, to protect those with whom it has
contracted (the citizenry) collectively and individually from
the violence of those defaulting or not party to the contract.
----- rabbit!ark -----
1. A government is an organization that has a monopoly on the use
of physical force in a particular geographical area.
2. The legitimate purpose of government is to use this monopoly
to protect the rights of the people in that area. Thus courts,
police, and armed forces are legitimate functions of a government.
Offhand, I can't think of any others.
----- hou5a!trc (Tom Craver) -----
These statements should not be taken as implying that I agree that
a government (as defined) is the correct manner of controlling force.
I am not yet convinced that the *geographical* monopoly is an inherent
requirement for the proper control of force. It may simply have been
the most convenient method to set up. (IE it simply evolved from primitive
tribalism.) However, people whose opinions I respect hold otherwise, and
I am not an expert, so I am withholding final judgement for now.)
Note that definitions are intended only to allow identification of a
class of entity from other classes of entities, and do not necessarily
tell every pertinent detail about that class of entities. Also note
that a definition is contextual - at minimum, the above definition of
government takes place in the context of controlling force against Men.
----- dciem!mmt (Martin Taylor) -----
It's easier to deal with the two questions in the other order, because
your ideas on what a government should do determines what you think a
government is. So:
(2) A government's main function is to focus the activities of people
so that events occur for the common benefit that would not be likely
to happen as a result of individual enterprise. This includes both
acticating and inhibiting functions (funding basic research is "activating",
passing laws against murder is "inhibiting"). It is unlikely that
highways and other aspects of the infrastructure would be highly
developed by private enterprise, at least not in a way that the poorest
could take advantage of them. It is economically risky for a small
company to undertake basic research, but the few results that do turn
out to be useful are useful to the entire community (or world), so
it makes sense for government to fund most basic research.
What government should NOT do is to over-regulate and over-inhibit.
Nor should it over-activate. Over-control is as bad as under-control.
The difficulty is to determine where the optimum balance lies, and to
see when it changes in each of the many different complex areas of
modern civilization.
(1) A government is a set of organized groups of people who are delegated
by individuals or by other smaller groups to act on their behalf in
matters of common interest. The delegation may be imposed by force,
or freely given. Usually, the structure of a government of more than
a few tens of people is formalized because there is too much institutional
inertia and too many complex interactions to permit easy change. The
Board of Directors of a company is a government, usually in power
by the application of financial force. There is no essential difference
between the government of a town or country and that of a company, except
for the degree of supervision or control exerted from other governments,
and the nature of the delegated authority. National governments tend
to assert that they are under no control except possibly for the votes
of their citizens, but that control also amounts to practically no control.
What is lacking is a system of interaction whereby national governments,
like other bodies, exert control in some areas while being controlled
in other areas.
I'm sorry if this doesn't fit with the ideas of various ideologues
of different colours. It is a relativistic view of government, that
may sometimes appear socialist, sometimes free-enterprise.
----- utzoo!laura (Laura Creighton) -----
Governments are self-perputuating organizations which claim the right to use
force to compel others to do as they demand. They are distinguished from
terrorist organisations in that they claim to be the "legitimate power"
and in that they are (in nations experiencing peace) the sole organisation
with the power. Some governments are better than others, but all of them
control the executions and the prisons. The only other exception to this that
i know is that certain religious organisations have co-existed with more
official governments. it was a pretty stable relationship, as well.