Government By And For The People?

Government By And For The People

Government By And For The People

What's does that really mean? How does that play out in real life?

If our government is really By And For The People. Why are some people so against the government helping people? Isn't this a representative form of government? Don't we elect candidates from each state, to represent the people of each state, to run the government on our behalf? So isn't the government really us, the people?

Some people say the government shouldn't help, those who are less fortunate than they are, or give them a "hand up", because that's socialism. But if the government is by and for the people, what's the problem with the government, helping us, the people, when we need it?

The United States Family

I see the United States as a family and all Americans are members of that family. Shouldn't we "look out" for our family? If your family needs, help don't you try to help them if they're in need of help? What's wrong with having that same attitude, toward all members of the American family? But, just like in some families, some people don't care about all of members of the family.They only care about themselves and those they favor or identify with.

Some People Don't Care About The Family Of Americans

Some Americans don't care, or give a damn about other members of the American family.They're only concerned about, their little slice of the American pie, and not the whole pie. Which is really short sighted, and self-defeating, because if you don't take care of the whole pie, you might end up not having a peice of the pie, yourself, to call your own

Complaining About The Government

A member of my family, was complaining that the "government" had passed or was trying to pass a law, requiring all kid to attend preschool.They didn't think that the "government" should be able to require parents, to send their children to preschool or school, at all for that matter. And that the "government" shouldn't be able tell us, what we can and can't do with our children.

I can understand that sentiment, from a self-centered, I only care about me and mine perspective. But is that the way a family is supposed to operate? Isn't the family supposed to look out for the good of all members of the family? Many parents are sending their children to preschool. Now when kids start kindergarten, they're learning and doing things that previously weren't being learned or done, until they were in first grade. Children who don't attend preschool, are more likely to fall behind those who do, or will have a harder time when they enter kindergarten, than if they did attend preschool.

My family member's attitude was, "let parents look out for their kids or home school them". Can you Imagine kids education, being dependent on what their parents know?

Kids of the less educated, or drug addicted, alcoholic or just don't give a damn parents, would be at a severe disadvantage, compared to the kids, that didn't have that disadvantage, wouldn't you agree? Would that be looking out for the good of those children, or the good of the American family, or the good of future of this country? I don't think so

Mandatory Public Education

That's the way it was before there was, a national education system. And there were many illiterate American citizens. Concerned citizens saw this as a major problem for this country because, competitor countries, were making sure that their people were being educated and, America had fallen behind in that area.

In 1852, Massachusetts became the first state to pass compulsory education laws, followed by New York a year later .By 1918 all kids in the United States, were required to attain at least, an elementary school education

Some Countries Help Their Citizens Get Higher Levels of Education

Countries like Germany, make it easy for their citizens to get a college education because, they know that investment in education, can only help Germany and its people in the long run. And Germany and other countries, are starting to pass the United States in education, technology and other areas, because our system makes it, hard (very expensive) for our people to get a college degree. Is that really looking out for the future of America or taking care of the American family?

I don't think so

Individual Rights

What do we call people who think that "freedom" and Individual rights" means, they can do whatever the hell, they want to do, and let every man, woman and child look out for themselves? Do we want to live by "might is right" and let the strongest, smartest, most vicious, most wealthy, run over the rest of us who may be weaker or less fortunate then they are?

That might appeal to those who are aggressive, competitive, bullies, or have the need to dominate others. But is that really the way you want to live?

I didn't think so

There is no such thing as unlimited individual rights. All individual rights are limited or no individual would have individual rights. Your rights end, where my rights, begin.

If there were no restrictions on any one's rights, it things would be, just like during the "Old West" out in the frontier, were every "man" was a law into themselves. And we saw how well that worked out didn't we?.

If we were all kindhearted, benevolent people, who respected and appreciated the rights of others. We probably wouldn't need restrictions anyone's rights or behavior, because, we would all just do what's right on our own, but is that the case?

True Government By The People

If our form of government, were truly government by and for the people.Then why are some people so against the government, helping us the people, when we're in need? Wouldn't we really just be, helping ourselves? I thought you'd agree

Give Your Opinion On This Question

Is Our Government Really By And For The People?

  • Yes It Is!
  • No It's Not!
  • I'm Not Sure!
  • I Don't Know!
See results without voting

Why Our Government Is Not For The People

More by this Author

Comments 4 comments

mike102771 profile image

mike102771 3 years ago from Lakemore, Ohio

The government is so large that it is hard to see the individual and his/her place in it. It is like the unrealistic people who think we could go back to citizen legislators not understanding the complexities of modern governance. Today’s government is not for amateurs.

Most of the issue I see in politics today with the unwillingness to help the people who need it comes from Ayn Rand. Her books speak of how the future and success is for the strong and how self-interest (rational self-interest) is the only true motivator. She also preached a notion that morality was a burden. “If any civilization is to survive, it is the morality of altruism that men have to reject” Ayn Rand. People like Paul Ryan others use this philosophy in their political views. Can spin a tail to the masses telling them the poor are to blame for all their problems and the best way to help them is not to join them. Radical self-interest has replaced Christian ideals of charity within the Republican Party.

Just a note: this hub was a little hard to follow. Maybe some paragraphs instead of single line statements.

vveasey profile image

vveasey 3 years ago from Detroit,MI Author


Thanks for your comments

I"ll make the hub easier to follow

I agree about Ayn Rand and Ryan. They're ideologues

who care more about ideas than they do about people

RealityTalk profile image

RealityTalk 3 years ago from Planet Earth

You make a very heart-warming speech and I agree with much of what you say. It would be amazing if we had a nation working to help all based on the individual needs of all; providing more assistance to those who need more assistance. But there is a difference between the idealist government of the people that would benefit those in need, and the real government that is carrying out the those ideals.

The truth is in the pudding. From day one of the formation of our Republic, our forefathers knew government was a potential hornets nest. They did not want the same problems they experienced with the government of England. That is why they struggled so much with the type of government they should form and that is why they came up with a new form of government foreign to that of the rest of the world; a world with a history of corrupt governments that benefited the few and not the many.

Our forefathers wanted small government. And for good reason. Look at our government today. If Thomas Jefferson or Benjamin Franklin were alive today, they would gasp at the size of it. They would shout foul at the corruptness and efficiency of it. We have a government that demands more than it gives. It takes nearly half of the yearly income we make out of our pockets in the form of taxes, claiming it needs the money to help us. It taxes everything we do, buy or say. Our Congress and Senate get paid huge salaries to represent us, and yet they cannot negotiate which each other about how best to spend the money they steal from us; they hold party politics more important than helping the nation. Our Congress and Senate befriend big business. Many of them own corporations and or are investors in corporations, privy to insider information they use to their financial gain and prosecute us if we do the same. The truth is our government cares little about its citizens. It feeds off of the people. It grows larger and larger to its own benefit. The larger it grows and the more indebted it becomes, the more it claims we need it. The bigger it grows, the more it demands to sustain itself. Our government claims we need it. The truth is, the government needs us.

Thomas Jefferson ran a small government and he ran it efficiently. He required very little tax from the people and he ran the government with no deficit. Our current government could learn from him.

What we need is small government. We need less taxation. We need no income tax for starters. Let me repeat. No income tax. If more money is left in our pockets, each of us will have more money to buy bread, pay for housing, clothe our children and help ourselves. We need less government intervention in our daily lives. We do not need government telling us how to live our personal lives; we are not children; we are not slaves. We can think and decide for ourselves; we can raise our own children and make our own personal life decisions. We need a small government that restricts its purpose to protecting us from outside interference and that protects our liberties. What I mean is protecting us from other countries who mean us harm and making sure we do not take away the freedom and liberties we deserve from each other. Our Congress and Senate should be held accountable for their inaction, for their inefficiency and for putting their personal interests above those of the people who elected them and are paying their salaries. Our Congress and Senate should be free of any conflicts of interest. They should not be allowed to be owners or investors in corporations and or any money making ventures.

I agree it would be nice if our government would do whatever necessary to help the most in need, but it doesn't and it won't. We as a people need to do this ourselves with less government intervention, with a smaller government. We need to help ourselves. We need to help our neighbors. We don't need a group of overpaid strangers with personal interests for personal gain running an over sized government to do what we should do ourselves.

vveasey profile image

vveasey 3 years ago from Detroit,MI Author


Good exposition!

I agree with you about congress being beholding to special interest groups etc, etc.

But I don't think a comparison with the government during Jefferson's time is really valid. Here why

They were really concerned with trying to create a government that wasn't a monarchy, because they were were British subjects living under the rule of King George. All land "discovered" by British subjects automatically belonged to King George that's one of reasons for the "revolutionary" war.

During Jefferson's time, America was mostly uninhabited if you discount the fact that there were millions of "Indians" living in most of North and South America.

So the government that Jefferson and others wanted to create, had to be small because the population was small. Why would you need a big government with a small population? (why would you need a big management team in a small company?) And they were trying to hammer out a form of government that wasn't finished, that was under construction, being tweaked, tinkered with and not perfect.

The country's' population is much greater and more complex than Jefferson' ever could have imagined during his time.

Imagine if there was no central government and all of the people in the country had all recently arrived here. How would you manage this situation and create a government that united all of these people under one government?

I don't think that Jefferson or any of the others would have approached the situation in the county today, the way they did then, because they were responding to the unique situation they were faced with at that time. If the situation had been different. They probably would have created a government that fit that situation.

And they still had a hard time trying to get their fellow British subjects to accept what they created and had to hold the meetings to ratify the constitution in secret, because what they were trying do was very unpopular.

I think we may be better served, if we approached solutions to the today's issues in the country, with a prospective, that in addition the good polices that were put in place back then, focuses on innovative solutions and policies that are tailored to address the unique population demographics and issues facing the country today

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.

    Click to Rate This Article