I think it would be interesting to compare this question to "who do you side with".

What is the purpose of government? What are its most primary functions?

Txgangsta : I believe the purpose of a government is to uphold the interests and act in the best interest of the people. In addition to that I believe the government's purpose is to uphold the laws and create laws for the safety of the people and there job is to protect the people from threats both foreign and domestic. I always believe that the government should be made by the people and for the people,and government officials should always be elected by the people.

The Government 's primary functions is to upload the law, and protect the very people that appointed the government. The governments primary functions should be to act in the best interest of the people and protect the people from foreign and domestic threats and to maintain the country that the government governs.(By maintain the country, I mean keeping  the economy running smooth, making sure  the country thrives and succeeds and making sure  the country's citizens are safe)

The government's primary function, after everything is considered, is to uphold order. The meaning of "uphold order" can vary depending on the circumstances and events that are involved, but the government is responsible for whatever upholding order may pertain. I understand that it's way more complicated than that, but I think that is a decent summary of government's purpose at a glance.

Governments exist because anarchy doesn't work very well. Mankind needs to have leaders.

The prime goal of a government is to create a utopia, something that is nearly impossible. A utopia is created when all citizens are satisfied in every facet of their lives, including their safety, their employment, their finances, their culture, and many other aspects. In my opinion, no such utopia exists on the planet, but mankind is getting closer and closer with the rise and fall of each government.

A government should ensure that people can live.
That means protecting the lives of the people, via an army, police
It should also consider the peoples longterm health, providing healthcare and low interest long term loans to those who need it. Vital resources such as water and power should also be controlled by the government, and whilst they should aim to improve the economy, they should always place the people above profit.

The government's only functions should be to uphold the law, protect a country's citizens, and maintain a military/police force to secure its borders.

Government has no place in the economy, health care, etc.

Neo Arcadia : i fully agree with this post 100%, however, i find that this also contradicts your post in the gun control thread, being that the second amendment was ratified to ensure public safety against domestic threats such as a constantly evolving government that, in time, can turn into something that it was never meant to be. after all, power and money ALWAYS corrupts. aside from that, everything i could and would have said in this thread was stated in your post. 


thenumberone : i totally disagree with your statement, in said case, every little detail of the individuals existence would have to be controlled by the government, no freedom = equal misery.


Txgangsta : are you currently residing in texas? if so, how much popularity is there in the concept of the return of the republic of texas?

m0ssb3rg935 :
You can disagree all you want, but it doesent make you right.
90% of it is true in scotland, yet we have ample (more than in america id say) freedom and very good lifes.
Equally our water is cheaper and better than any english company's.
Unlike in.america, we dont have people dying from preventible diseases or because they cant afford an operation.
Oh the horror of it all/sarcasm.

thenumberone : Did this have to turn to America vs. Scotland?

The two countries are completely different and it's impossible to compare them fairly.  Scotland has a small population, a specific demographic and culture, is 92% white (I can cite text if you like), mostly Christian or Atheist, you speak three languages, and you're about the size of South Carolina with a population somewhere between Colorado and Minnesota.

The U.S. has a 310+ million people with so many different languages, cultures, religions, beliefs, stories, and we're all over the place when it comes to people.

One is not better than the other.  Scotland isn't better than the U.S. and the U.S. isn't better than Scotland.  Both do things well and both fail at things miserably.  The tough part and the reason we (Americans) have so much political challenge is our population.  We have people who live 4,000 miles apart (or more) and have completely different backgrounds.  Scotland has had emigration rise recently and you're preparing for it but the U.S. sees huge numbers of people come in illegally as well as legally.  We have a shorter history but we have so many stories from around the world that we can't simply agree.  Muslims, Christians, Atheists, liberals, conservatives, clog-dancers, Wiccans, Chinese, Europeans, Mexicans, South Americans, American born citizens of all ethnicities, fans of wrestling.... there are so many different opinions, it's nearly impossible to hold up everyone's expectations.

For better or worse, that's our culture.  The trouble is we're simply too big to nationalize healthcare, however much we try.  

It works better at the state level.  If you're interested, look at Massachusetts state laws regarding health care reform introduced in 2006.  More interesting, it was put into play by a Republican governor.

Should the national government be liable to provide everything for it's people?  Not in the U.S.  We're too big for that.  Local government?  Yes, please, if I want it.  Americans can use all the help we can get.  I prefer the ability to choose what I want and don't want but if someone would like some assistance, sure thing.  

m0ssb3rg935 : Arcadia, whom you agree with, said the gov't protects the people from threats foreign and domestic.  Aren't things like diseases, illiteracy, and poverty a threat to the well-being of the population?  How is providing services for those who need them forcing total control down your throat, specifically?  And what's kills more Americans?  The wars overseas and terrorists or heart disease and fixable problems within our borders?  Numberone has some great points and a different point of view compared to Americans.  Why not have an open mind and think about it?

warmaker :
It doesent have to be, and as you will notice, I never even brought it up until I was challenged as to the validity of my opinion. The fact it was a direct comparison to america is due only to the fact I was discussing it with anamerican. If it was a chinese guy id be comparing it to china.
Equally its not a versus but a comparisson, in only a very narrow area, and an opinion, which everyone is entitled to hold (regardless of whether american or scottish, a freedom many dont have).
Your initial prognosis is correct, although the language is off, unless youre talking about recognised regional languages (English, Gaelic and Scott's). Much like america, there are many unrecognised languages, some of which dont even extend past a towns borders, some people still speak old norse languages.
Im not saying scotland is better than americ, im saying I feel its better. Based on what I value. Frankly thats what I feel the point of a nation is, to represent a certain demiographicof political ideologys. I have mine, you have yours. And in much the same way, concerning person opinion, im sure you regard america as more desireable to live in than Scotland?
Did you mean to say emmigration or imigration in regards to scotland? Scotland has always had pretty steady emigration hence why the population has remained fairely constant, in regards to immigration thats significantly risen since e are a member of the eu, with an influx of spanish, italian, french, polish etc citizens. Something I dont actually mind, its been a good experience, and of course its on a more equal basis, because im free to go to any of thise nations on a whim for as long as I please.
And yes, it is true to say that the scale of diversity makes it difficult to adequately represent every single group, again why I have preference to my current system.
I disagree that your nation could not make healthcare more accesible to people, and I will always have an opinion on it. Im aware that its ultimately down to americans to choose their future, and obviously thats as it should be, but everyone has an opinion, whether they voice it or not.
Im aware of Massachusetts progressive attitude in regards to many different kind of reforms, I found it quite interesting to see something being done.
It is about choice, and here, we choose to adopt what can be seen as socialist policies.
Fair summary, fair points, I dont really have any objection to whats been said.

m0ssb3rg935 :

Popularity? Plenty, especially as you get out of the big cities. Rural Texans are about as republican as you can get, but they have a secret, little libertarian in them that's just never talked about. The federal government has increasingly grown more and more involved in the life of the citizen and it doesn't sit well with them. The secessionist within them stirs because they think the US government is too invasive. Tea Party runs high because nearly 100% of these people are complete self-sufficient and literally have zero need for higher governments. 

However, if you get close to Austin, Dallas, Houston, or anything close to the boarder, none of the actions of the federal government really matter to them. I grew up at the far south end of Houston where suburban life meets the ranch and now live downtown, and you can definitely see the different dispositions between the two drastically different cultures.

I think the culture induced by the metropolis may breed a socialist streak...

thenumberone : just for clarity, i never meant to question the validity of your points. i did not take into consideration that you were not in the US, my mistake for assuming. my main point was the same as warmakers, that what works in a european country probably would not work over here because of the difference in population, mentality and system.

warmaker : i try to be open minded with subjects such as politics and government, but as history has shown many times over, when anything that is suggested by the government with good intentions, it seems to always be corrupted and turned into a power grab, especially in our country where the government obviously does not like the idea of the people holding the power. im not against trying to find solutions to our growing medical problems, but the government ALWAYS has an angle.

Txgangsta : if texas leaves the union, im moving there. tennessee is really nice but the officials are really overstepping there boundaries.

m0ssb3rg935 :

Well, there's no way Texas would ever actually be able to secede. NASA, oil, farming, chemicals, the largest port on the gulf, air plane manufacturing; it's too valuable to let go without major conflict

m0ssb3rg935 :
Fair enough, and I appreciate the clarification.
However I would say:
All that it takes for evil to suceed is for good men to stand by and do nothing.
Or to take a more scottish phrase, do not live in fear, but believe in better. Its your country, you shouldnt allow a select few to take it from you, or kill your resolve. If history has shown anything, its that you can kill a man but you cant kill an idea.
I dknt believe in god. My only faith is that I can contribute to leave the world in a better state than I found it

thenumberone :

"I dknt believe in god. My only faith is that I can contribute to leave the world in a better state than I found it"

That is rather god-like of you =)