Should the government give us what we need, even though it is not what we want?
Debate Round Forfeited
Tenpus has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
|Voting Style:||Open||Point System:||7 Point|
|Updated:||4 weeks ago||Status:||Debating Period|
|Viewed:||75 times||Debate No:||96783|
Debate Rounds (3)
Because the people can get lost in between what is need and what is want. If a trend occurs that medical healthcare is complete garbage, is the government going to shut down their own hospitals? As mentioned in the topic, our need means what we need means what we need in the grand scheme of things, not what the government thinks we need, and not what we think we need.
The prospect of the people denying their own needs is ridiculous I know. But what is even more ridiculous is the people calling their government a "dictatorship" or something within that context solely because they attempt to supply their own personal needs?
An important duty of the government is to supply what their own people need, if they cant usher basic food production and create a decent water supply then that wouldn't be a very effective government, now would it? And another thing they ought to do is to aid us in attaining our practical, earthly wants, so if eat, sleep, work is the routine a country follows, then the government is not appeasing the wants of the people. But if the people's wants go against their needs, which will be followed? Simple needs over wants principle.
If a government has 1 Billion Dollars to spend ( 49 Billion Pesos just so my countrymen know ) and they plan to spend it on improving the nation's education, but the people disagree, even though their education system is wreaked and is in dire need of funding. They want the funds to be spent on buying each family a nice BMW sedan, will the government go through with the plan, or choose to contact BMW for a bulk order of sedans?
I agree that the government should provide us with our needs, like water, public security, etc. but not if it conflicts with what we want.
Let me give, for example, the Prohibition. The ban on alcohol seemed like something the people needed, it still does, but when the government did ban alcohol it did nothing but feed the problem. It proved that the people didn't want the ban on alcohol. Another example would be the war on drugs.
What made me ask this question is the current election. We have Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, both are arguably terrible, one might say Hillary is more qualified than Trump. Now please don't think I'm a pretentious liberal 15 year old, when I was watching Bill Maher he was talking about how Hillary Clinton should be president regardless of her manipulative tendencies. He went on to list these movies with female dictator-like leaders, like in the Maze Runner, he goes on to say that he would better support the "cold calculating women leader" who has to do go against the wants of the people to do what's needed , like in those movies. And then scenario popped into my head, what if the popular vote was for Donald Trump, and Donald Trump should win, but the government lied and said Hillary won to save the consequences Trump could invoke on the world. And in my scenario, Hillary is the best person for office, but has been recorded doing bad things even for the better good.
So here's where my question begins, should the government do things like that? Going against our wants, even if it's what we need.
My answer is NO. The government stops being our partner and starts being our parent when it does this. But that's not the governments place. It should work with us to serve us. Our parents want what's best for us, and might deceive us or go against our wants. When our parents don't let us eat candy right before bed, that's a parent job. Now how would you react if your partner did this? Even though your partner is looking out for your well being, it's not their place.
I hope this was easy to understand, I can be quite confusing.
You say the ban on alcohol 'seemed' to be needed, but the question was: Should the government give us what we need, even though it is not what we want? I emphasize 'what we need', not what we seem to need. Did the United States really need an alcohol ban? Did the Philippines need a war on drugs more than the US? By need, I mean not what the government thinks we need, and not what we think we need, but what we need. That if some anthropomorphic entity of superior wisdom were to exist, that being could say " ok this is what you guys need". But 90% of what we think we need, is only what we THINK we need. But in the grand scheme of things, what we TRULY need must take a higher place in the governments priorities compared to what the people want. So, need here means what we truly need and not what anyone thinks we need.
Now, speaking 'bout the war on drugs. A similar thing has been happening in my homeland. It is exactly what the people want. But it isn't what we need. I am living in an administration where the government freely submits to the people's idiotic and uninformed wants. 5,800 people have been killed through vigilante murders, it makes the people FEEL safe, but they aren't. The people wanted an increase in pension, even though it would kill our economy, not giving an increase is what we need, but it goes against our wants. So the government submits. EJK is what we want, but not need, it is brutal and barbaric. Due process is what my country needs, but its not what my countrymen want, country or countrymen? Who should our government follow? The people for, for some reason, hate the USA. Our WWII ally, our closest western friend, keeping close to them is what we need, having no arms or will to stand against China, but since the people hate them ( since our retarded president who was diagnosed as a psychopath hates them to ) the government happily severed ties with Uncle Sam.
Now compare this, to my country's last administration, it always went against what we want. The people hated our past president. But, unlike our tough talking president, he had the guts to say no to my countrymen's immaturity. We wanted pension increase, we needed better roads. One time I saw this man complaining, about the government. Ironically he was walking along a newly paved road beside a brand-new hospital.
Now, as Justice Louis Brandeis has said: "The most important Political Office is that of the private citizen." We hold the most powerful role in the government. We elect our leaders to serve the country, sometimes this does not mean satisfying our wants. You do need to take note, that they still are serving us by giving us what we need, when they are giving what we want over what we need they may be wasting funds, or worse, killing us. Even though we play a big role, we tend to be the least qualified to be leaders, so if the government will bend to our will, what is the purpose of having a government?
So are our petty desires of higher value against our needs? That is my question. Because what the opposition stands for is that our wants is what the government should ultimately follow even if pitted against our real needs. Let's be honest, citizens tend to be immature. Parents are doing what is good for us, but since you see the government as a partner you see going against our wants as bad. But either way, it is only how we perceive the government that makes a difference. IT is their place to correct us, because they are our leaders. We chose them because we believe that they can make the right choices. But in the end it doesn't matter where their place is, what matters is that they are doing it for our own benefit. We may never see it, but it does us good.
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click thelink at the top of the page.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.