Re: Inherently Government Functions

[Kush Khatri <free_voice@yahoo.com>]

> PJShah <pjshah@del2.vsnl.net.in> wrote:
>
> The standard principle has been that peaceful coexistence among humans
> requires monopoly on the use of physical force. Government is granted a
> legal (legitimated) monopoly on the use of force in a give geographical
> area.  This suggests that areas that require use of force should be
> limited only to the government.  That is, national defense, police, and
> the court system. In the latter case, there could be competing courts
> (private arbitration etc) but govt courts have the final authority.
> Everything else should be left to the civil society.
>
> To limit the misuse of this monopoly, governments are required to work
> under the framewrok of objective laws and constitution.  Constitutions
> are designed to specify and restrict government's and not people's
> powers.  Government can do only what is prescribed in the constitution.

The above is an excellent summation by Mr. Shah.  That is what we
need: good, concise, very basic yet so vital points.  Would like to
hear Mr. Shah's and others take on this:  There is absolutely no doubt
that areas that require use of force ARE INHERENTLY government
functions.  But in the light of the rise of the Corporation could we
include (1) safety and consumer protection and (2) environmental
protection where government will be and should be a major player??
(1) Under safety I will most definitely include workers safety,
workers pay and compensation and labor disputes.
Under consumer protection I will include protecting citizens from
corportate and business fraud and unsafe products.
(2) Enviornment does not need much explaining.  No one can live
without safe air, water.  Ecological damage cannot be controlled by
private efforts.  Protecting citizens health and surroundings should
be a priority and cannot be per se privatized.

Lastly, I was delighted that you mentioned the primary reason for a
constitution.  Most people think constitution is there to describe a
country's polity.  That it does.  But the most important reason for a
constituion is to define governmental powers and even more important
the limits of such powers.  And of course, the constituion does define
the rights of the people.

IMO, the Indian constituion is a very hard document to read.  It is
evasive on rights, gives to much power to the central government and
fails to distribute governmental authority by providing stability to
certain institutions.   It has unnecessary details that belong to
legislation rather than the constituion.  Your reaction(s) please.

Kush Khatri

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a posting to India_Policy Discussion list:  debate@indiapolicy.org
Rules, Procedures, Archives:            ../debate/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------