Should government run society?

[dblack]

In another thread we've been debating socialism, and of course there's usual gyrations and equivocation on terminology. The concept of "Democratic Socialism" was discussed, and the following definition was offered up:

Democratic socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically—to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few. To achieve a more just society, many structures of the government and economy must be radically transformed through greater economic and social democracy so that ordinary citizens can participate in the many decisions that affect their lives.

I've seen this characterization before. Before it even gets to government controlling the economy - the usual sticking point when discussing socialism - it makes the claim that "society should be run democratically", and that gets a full stop from me. I don't think the purpose of government is to run society. It's govern. The maintain law and order and protect our freedom to run society as we please.

But I gather many people have no problem with the notion that government should "run" society. Nor with the idea that government should run the economy. It would seem they want government to run everything. That sounds like a recipe for disaster from my point of view.

What do you think? Should society be "run", democratically, by the government? Should everything we do in a social setting be subject to majority rule?

 

[WEATHER53]

Government exists to serve and protect
Now we thinkers know you libbies cannot self regulate and need the nanny state to nurse you along but most Americans don’t need nor believe in that.

 

[toobfreak]

Should government run society?​

How does a question like this even come up in an enlightened society? I mean, Isn't America supposed to be that shining city on the hill a role model for the world?

Anyone above grade six should already know that government is a FUNCTION of society, created as a subset of the people charged with carrying out the laws which allow society to remain and operate in an orderly fashion.

So obviously, it must be society which defines government, not the other way around.

Interesting though that as we become more and more a lawless society a la the Left, we also become more disorderly, which indicates that government is failing its mandate and becoming part of the problem rather than solution.

 

[rightwinger]

A Government of the people, by the people and FOR the people

 

[Donald H]

Should everything we do in a social setting be subject to majority rule?

It's good that you're reaching out for answers.
That's an interesting question but it's too vague to be able to understand.
Social setting?

Are you trying to entertain the ideas of socially responsible capitalism in which 'socialism' plays a part?
Or?
What part should socialism be playing in a capitalist country?

 

[BluesLegend]

 

[Otis Mayfield]

Government does run society. That's pretty much the definition of "government".

 

[dblack]

Government exists to serve and protect
Now we thinkers know you libbies ...

I'm not a libbie, douchebag. You know that, so you're just thread crapping. Troll somewhere else.

 

[BluesLegend]

More proof we should carve out some land for the left to live apart from normal America.

 

[dblack]

Government does run society. That's pretty much the definition of "government".

Really???

I'd say that's the definition of totalitarian government. But a liberal democracy is supposed to be about protecting our freedom to create the kind of society we want voluntarily.

 

[dblack]

Interesting though that as we become more and more a lawless society a la the Left, we also become more disorderly, which indicates that government is failing its mandate and becoming part of the problem rather than solution.

The expansion of government to intervene in more and more of society's activities is, in my view, at the heart of our current political dysfunction. The reason everyone is SO desperate to keep the "other side" from gaining power, is that government has far too much power. The more government is tasked with "running" society, the more people and interest groups will strive to control government.

 

[dblack]

It's good that you're reaching out for answers.
That's an interesting question but it's too vague to be able to understand.
Social setting?

Are you trying to entertain the ideas of socially responsible capitalism in which 'socialism' plays a part?
Or?
What part should socialism be playing in a capitalist country?

I'm just wondering why anyone would want society run democratically - I get tripped up there before we even get to the economic stuff. Seems to me we're talking about a profoundly different view of government. It informs everything we talk about politically.

 

[miketx]

They do run it.

 

[BlindBoo]

Yes the government and quasi-governmental agencies like utility districts should run/regulate parts of society. They should all answer to the people.

 

[toobfreak]

Government does run society. That's pretty much the definition of "government".

Wow. It takes guts to admit that you are dumber than a block of wood.

Guess the gov really got their money's worth edumacating you.

 

[dblack]

They do run it.

Interesting. Are you employed by government? Not all of us are.

 

[dblack]

Yes the government and quasi-governmental agencies like utility districts should run/regulate parts of society. They should all answer to the people.

That certainly seems like a lot of hedging. Who exactly should answer to "the people"? Everyone? Just rich people? Just business owners?

 

[toobfreak]

They do run it.

Please let them know they are doing one fucked up job. I want a refund.

 

[dblack]

A Government of the people, by the people and FOR the people

Nice slogan. Any views on the topic?

 

[Donald H]

Government does run society. That's pretty much the definition of "government".

Society runs government i any countries that can claim to be democracies.
Forget the hairsplitting nonsense that claims the US is a republic. It's still a democracy.

The best definition of fascism describes what Trump is attempting to do with the election results. If he could succeed then he would be running government by sidestepping the ballot box.

Jan.6th. was an attmted at fascism taking over government.

The process that Rittenhouse started can become fascism, in that a country can be ruled by force of the gun. This too is attributable to the Trump influence which encourages gun violence.

There are many other indications of Trump's attempt at taking over control of a democracy.

Communist works in entirely different ways but those who promote fascism will knee jerk conflate anything in order to not have to face reality.

Trump won the election?

Deal with the big lie!