The Basic Duties of a Government

[Rabid]

I was thinking... There's a Universal Declaration of Human Rights, describing the Fundamental Rights of any individuals. It got me thinking, why not a Universal Declaration of a Government's Duties, describing (duh !) their Fundamental Duties ?

Here's what I've got so far :

The basic duties of a Government :

First Duty – Ensuring that any people present on the territories under its jurisdiction can :
- Drink an healthy water and feed itself to satiety with food which will not endanger his/her health in the short-, medium- and long-term.
- Benefit, without expense of their own, of any and all vital care that could prove necessary during their existence.
- Benefit of a decent housing reasonably close from their workplace or mean of subsistence.
- Benefit of a guaranteed minimum income allowing them to lead a decent existence.
- See his/her Fundamental Rights, as defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, respected, guaranteed and protected.
- Work under decent conditions respectful of the norms instituted by the International Labour Organization.

Second Duty – Protect the environment, biodiversity, and limit all kind of pollutions on the territories under its jurisdiction ; for this end undertaking all the reasonably applicable measures and initiatives permitting to limit the impact of human activities on the natural environment, this in a way compatible with the First Duty.

Third Duty – Ensure the perpetuation of a government respectful of the First and Second Duties.

Original French (for those interested) :
Spoiler

Les devoirs de base d'un Gouvernement :

Premier Devoir – Assurer que chaque personne présente sur les territoires sous sa juridiction puisse :
- Boire une eau saine et se nourrir à satiété d'une nourriture qui ne mettra pas en danger sa santé à court, moyen ou long terme
- Bénéficier, sans dépense propre, de tous les soins vitaux qui pourraient s'avérer nécessaire au cours de leur existence.
- Bénéficier d'un logement décent raisonnablement proche de son lieu de travail ou moyen de subsistance.
- Bénéficier d'un revenu minimum garantis leur permettant de mener une existence décente.
- Voir ses Droits Fondamentaux, tels que définis par la Déclaration Universelle des Droits de l'Homme, respectés, garantis et protégés.
- Travailler dans des conditions décentes respectueuses des normes instituées par l'Organisation Internationale du Travail.

Second Devoir – Protéger l'environnement, la biodiversité, et limiter tout types de pollutions sur les territoires sous sa juridiction ; à cette fin mettant en place toutes les mesures et initiatives raisonnablement applicables permettant de limiter l'impact des activités humaines sur le milieu naturel, ceci d'une manière compatible avec le Premier Devoir.

Troisième Devoir – Assurer la perpétuation d'un gouvernement respectueux des Premier et Second Devoirs.

What are your thoughts :

- On the idea itself (ideally, formatted such that it could be proposed at the United Nations and adopted on the same footing as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights).
- On what I've put so far in the declaration.
- On its structure.

Personally, I think that any kind of "Universal Declaration" should be kept as simple as possible in order to be understood by everyone, and sufficiently vague that it does not impose one method of achieving an end

[Grumman]

The basic duties of a Government :

First Duty – Ensuring that any people present on the territories under its jurisdiction can :
...
- Benefit, without expense of their own, of any and all vital care that could prove necessary during their existence.

I do not agree with this because without recognising the necessity for triage, it is without limit. A right to healthy food or clean drinking water has a definite, achievable objective - if your citizens each have access to X litres of water and Y and Z kilograms of food per month, you have fulfilled your duty. The same is not true of health care - there is no amount of health care spending that will stave off death indefinitely, so claiming the government has the "basic duty" to provide any and all vital care is simply nonsensical.

[Chirios]

Why doesn't this list ensure the Rule of Law? Given that's why governments exist in the first place I would've thought that's the most basic duty.

[Rabid]

I do not agree with this because without recognising the necessity for triage, it is without limit. A right to healthy food or clean drinking water has a definite, achievable objective - if your citizens each have access to X litres of water and Y and Z kilograms of food per month, you have fulfilled your duty. The same is not true of health care - there is no amount of health care spending that will stave off death indefinitely, so claiming the government has the "basic duty" to provide any and all vital care is simply nonsensical.

It was meant to be interpreted as "No one should have to pay from their own purses for vital care", or phrased differently "Someone's right to existence, in the face of a potentially lethal illness or injuries, should not be indexed on their capacity to pay for proper care.". It was not meant to be interpreted as "governments should do the impossible so that no one dies, ever, even up to violating a person's free will".

Maybe I should replace the original statement with that second one... Or do you think it is fair that someone could be left to die because they can't pay, or that the bill should be passed to their next-of-kin ? Or is it something else ? I am not judgmental, I just want to know your stance on the matter.

Why doesn't this list ensure the Rule of Law? Given that's why governments exist in the first place I would've thought that's the most basic duty.

Yeah, that's a legitimate one. I thought it was covered by "- See his/her Fundamental Rights, as defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, respected, guaranteed and protected.", though... Thoughts ?

[Chirios]

Yeah, that's a legitimate one. I thought it was covered by "- See his/her Fundamental Rights, as defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, respected, guaranteed and protected.", though... Thoughts ?

Not really. The problem with that is the question of what fundamental rights are, and who they apply to. I live in two countries, Botswana and England. England allows for the marriage of homosexual countries while Botswana doesn't, so the question becomes is the right to marry a fundamental right? Botswana would argue it doesn't while England would argue it does. Now, you could argue that Botswana has not fulfilled its basic duty as a government, but then you have to take into account that Botswana is one of the better countries in Africa, and if you say that marriage is a fundamental right, you risk alienating one of the few pro-western countries you get in Africa.

If I was writing this, I'd go a lot more basic:

Effective Administration of Law
Exercise of Control of Territory
Control of National Borders

Those three things are the basic duties of a government, everything else I can think of is extra.

[Grumman]

Or do you think it is fair that someone could be left to die because they can't pay, or that the bill should be passed to their next-of-kin ? Or is it something else ? I am not judgmental, I just want to know your stance on the matter.

Fair's got nothing to do with it. I think it is inevitable that someone could be left to die because they can't pay, unless you actively forbid people the right to advance their own healthcare beyond what the government provides.

[Rabid]

@ Chirios : You are right.

Before I go on rewriting the whole thing, any thoughts on a multi-tiered agreement. IE : First tier, most basic duties, even those who haven't signed the agreement are expected to respect them (like with Human Rights, I... guess ? Uh, I honestly don't know, there...) ; Second tier, agreement on environmental protection and/or more "developed" human rights (like promoting freedom of information [developing modern telecom infrastructures, including the Internet] and fight against all forms of censure), enforced on a voluntary basis (you sign this part, the other who have also signed it make sure that you respect your parole).
Something like that... Good or bad idea ?

Fair's got nothing to do with it. I think it is inevitable that someone could be left to die because they can't pay, unless you actively forbid people the right to advance their own healthcare beyond what the government provides.

I honestly don't even know how to make sense from what you just said. I must be stupid, or we must have so differing life experiences as to be unable to understand each others...
Could you try to reformulate what you just said, please ? I seem to be unable to understand what you just said.

[Alkaloid]

Fair's got nothing to do with it. I think it is inevitable that someone could be left to die because they can't pay, unless you actively forbid people the right to advance their own healthcare beyond what the government provides.

Ar you one of those Americans that thinks socialised health care means the government assess you case and if it's going to cost more than 200 odd dollars to treat you you wont be treated? Because that's not how it works.

[Grumman]

Fair's got nothing to do with it. I think it is inevitable that someone could be left to die because they can't pay, unless you actively forbid people the right to advance their own healthcare beyond what the government provides.

I honestly don't even know how to make sense from what you just said. I must be stupid, or we must have so differing life experiences as to be unable to understand each others...
Could you try to reformulate what you just said, please ? I seem to be unable to understand what you just said.

Sure.

Do you believe in the concept of triage? Is there some point at which the government is allowed to say "We could save this man's life, but the cost is so high that we cannot justify this apportionment of limited resources"? It doesn't matter exactly where that limit is, but for the sake of example let's just go with $1 billion. If the government is allowed to say "We cannot afford to spend a billion dollars to save one man's life," and Bill Gates is allowed to say "Sure, here's a billion dollars for your treatment," then the situation you oppose exists.

Ar you one of those Americans that thinks socialised health care means the government assess you case and if it's going to cost more than 200 odd dollars to treat you you wont be treated? Because that's not how it works.

I'm not an American. And if you read what I actually wrote, I was supporting the necessity for triage (or as you might put it, "death panels"). The government does not possess an unending sea of resources, and cannot afford to do everything that it would be nice if they could do.

[Chirios]

@ Chirios : You are right.

Before I go on rewriting the whole thing, any thoughts on a multi-tiered agreement. IE : First tier, most basic duties, even those who haven't signed the agreement are expected to respect them (like with Human Rights, I... guess ? Uh, I honestly don't know, there...) ; Second tier, agreement on environmental protection and/or more "developed" human rights (like promoting freedom of information [developing modern telecom infrastructures, including the Internet] and fight against all forms of censure), enforced on a voluntary basis (you sign this part, the other who have also signed it make sure that you respect your parole).
Something like that... Good or bad idea ?.

It's better. The problem with focusing too much on "Western" requirements is that most of the world really isn't there yet technologically. Take your communications example, most of the world simply doesn't have the capability to develop its own satellite system, so the internet is right out. Even something simpler, like telephones, is difficult for a significant percentage of the world. And in those countries that are able to produce these communication systems, you have to accept that they might not be able to extend those systems to the entirety of their country.

If I was building a country from scratch, the three things I would focus on would be:

Rule of Law
Control of Territory
Control of Borders

After that was sorted:

Development of Infrastructure - including but not limited to, Sanitation, Railways, Roads, etc.
Education.

After that:

Internet access
Scientific research
Global telecommunications

[Rabid]

Sure.

Do you believe in the concept of triage? Is there some point at which the government is allowed to say "We could save this man's life, but the cost is so high that we cannot justify this apportionment of limited resources"? It doesn't matter exactly where that limit is, but for the sake of example let's just go with $1 billion. If the government is allowed to say "We cannot afford to spend a billion dollars to save one man's life," and Bill Gates is allowed to say "Sure, here's a billion dollars for your treatment," then the situation you oppose exists.

I think I understand what you are saying, now.

Yes, I believe in the necessity of triage. A triage performed by sworn medical staff, not by government officials, I must add. Sure, the point at which we draw the line is problematic ; but in my opinion, it is really the only problem here. If the doctors say you are on the wrong sides of the line but you have the means to pay to save your live, then by all mean go for it, no one is going to stops you ! There are no contradiction here :
The larger point I was trying to make with this "duty" was that a guaranteed access to Healthcare is, in my opinion, one of the most basic duties of any government, and that it shouldn't matter if you are rich or poor, you should have the right to proper care in any way ; and I should add that you shouldn't see your life financially ruined because of the cost of your illnesses (eg. : american healthcare system).

The only question here is where we draw the lines at triage. In my opinion, the "lines" are for people dying of old age or from incurable illnesses with no treatment ; and here the cost of accompanying them so that their last days would be as painless as possible would be covered. Cancer patient in Terminal stages ARE covered as long as they don't say that they finally want to die, at which point they join the others for the "let us die as painlessly as possible with as much dignity as possible" program. But here we start reaching the Grey Area of the Right to Euthanasia, and I don't want to go there.

Thinking of it, here's a fundamental thing I think should help you understand my position. For me "care" isn't defined as "saving a person's life at all cost". For me care is much more about caring, limiting a person's suffering, allowing them to keep their dignity in the face of their mortality. One way or another, you can't win against Death. But you can ease their sufferings. For me, THIS is the important part.


This is shifting into an "Ethics of Healthcare" thread. I would prefer if this discussion was handled in another thread, as it otherwise clutter this one thread and is an important question of its own. Once this question is "resolved" I'll see how I can plug it back into the text.

[Plushie]

@ Chirios : You are right.

Before I go on rewriting the whole thing, any thoughts on a multi-tiered agreement. IE : First tier, most basic duties, even those who haven't signed the agreement are expected to respect them (like with Human Rights, I... guess ? Uh, I honestly don't know, there...) ; Second tier, agreement on environmental protection and/or more "developed" human rights (like promoting freedom of information [developing modern telecom infrastructures, including the Internet] and fight against all forms of censure), enforced on a voluntary basis (you sign this part, the other who have also signed it make sure that you respect your parole).
Something like that... Good or bad idea ?.

It's better. The problem with focusing too much on "Western" requirements is that most of the world really isn't there yet technologically. Take your communications example, most of the world simply doesn't have the capability to develop its own satellite system, so the internet is right out. Even something simpler, like telephones, is difficult for a significant percentage of the world. And in those countries that are able to produce these communication systems, you have to accept that they might not be able to extend those systems to the entirety of their country.

If I was building a country from scratch, the three things I would focus on would be:

Rule of Law
Control of Territory
Control of Borders

After that was sorted:

Development of Infrastructure - including but not limited to, Sanitation, Railways, Roads, etc.
Education.

After that:

Internet access
Scientific research
Global telecommunications

I think it's obvious that the primary duty of government is to enact the will of the sovereign. In the modern case, that's the people. A people interested in development would follow a particular path, using their common government as an instrument to help themselves along with it in those ways which they collectively conceive of as best.

[Alkaloid]

I'm not an American. And if you read what I actually wrote, I was supporting the necessity for triage (or as you might put it, "death panels"). The government does not possess an unending sea of resources, and cannot afford to do everything that it would be nice if they could do.

I did read what you wrote. Triage has nothing to do with what you can pay doctors, and what you wrote sounded like the typical 'socialised health care means death panels' bs that seems to be typical of a lot of Americans who are awfully confused about how it works, and believe that it inevitably means the only people making any healthcare decisions are government accountants, and it was going to temper my response. That's why I asked first.

Do you believe in the concept of triage? Is there some point at which the government is allowed to say "We could save this man's life, but the cost is so high that we cannot justify this apportionment of limited resources"? It doesn't matter exactly where that limit is, but for the sake of example let's just go with $1 billion. If the government is allowed to say "We cannot afford to spend a billion dollars to save one man's life," and Bill Gates is allowed to say "Sure, here's a billion dollars for your treatment," then the situation you oppose exists.

What medical treatments cost a billion dollars? The thing with medical treatments is that they can be expensive, yes, but the sort of treatments that cost the most are when a person requires medication over a long period of time. There are really only two situations where huge lump sums have to be paid out all at once, experimental procedures where the treatment is not widely produced, so the costs are higher, but which is going to have to be paid anyway, and rich people illegally acquiring organs. Operations and the like can be expensive, true, but never to the sort of area where it is infeasable for a sensibly run healthcare scheme to cover it, especially if backed up by sensibly run private health care.

[Simon_Jester]

I think it's obvious that the primary duty of government is to enact the will of the sovereign. In the modern case, that's the people. A people interested in development would follow a particular path, using their common government as an instrument to help themselves along with it in those ways which they collectively conceive of as best.

I don't like that.

For one, does it mean that the duty of a signatory government which has a divine monarchy (like North Korea) is to obey the whims of its god-king? I'd be happier leaving any clause about the duty of obedience out.

More generally though, yes any state should list the first duties of government as the ones the West takes for granted... because by and large, there is no Western government so derelict of its duty that we can argue it deserves to be overthrown by a violent revolution.

The French monarchy of 1789 had failed the people so greatly that you could make a case for this, likewise the Russian monarchy of 1917. But these are basic breakdowns we're talking about: inability to defend the nation from attack, inability to keep the people from starving and the bandits from defying the law, and so on.

"Normal" First World countries haven't had a problem with any of that in generations.

Fair's got nothing to do with it. I think it is inevitable that someone could be left to die because they can't pay, unless you actively forbid people the right to advance their own healthcare beyond what the government provides.

Ar you one of those Americans that thinks socialised health care means the government assess you case and if it's going to cost more than 200 odd dollars to treat you you wont be treated? Because that's not how it works.

No, but there's such a thing as wait lists- always has to be; it's how a nationalized system replaces triage-by-wallet-size.

There will be someone who can't pay for that treatment and dies. Even if the treatment could never be given to everyone who needs it, there will still be someone who dies for lack of access to it. The only way around it is to ban any treatment if you didn't bring enough of it to serve everyone in need, which would be stupid.

So how is access to treatment that isn't common enough for everyone controlled? Some systems might do it with a lottery or a waiting list, but people still die if their number doesn't come up. Others might do it by charging fees... in which case someone can still die for lack of access to the treatment.

Thinking of it, here's a fundamental thing I think should help you understand my position. For me "care" isn't defined as "saving a person's life at all cost". For me care is much more about caring, limiting a person's suffering, allowing them to keep their dignity in the face of their mortality. One way or another, you can't win against Death. But you can ease their sufferings. For me, THIS is the important part.

Okay, see? That didn't come out in the translation from Rabid!French to English; this is a major problem with declarations of rights.

[Alkaloid]

No, but there's such a thing as wait lists- always has to be; it's how a nationalized system replaces triage-by-wallet-size.

There will be someone who can't pay for that treatment and dies. Even if the treatment could never be given to everyone who needs it, there will still be someone who dies for lack of access to it. The only way around it is to ban any treatment if you didn't bring enough of it to serve everyone in need, which would be stupid.

People under socialised healthcare with life threatening conditions (that can be treated by an available treatment) are not typically put onto waiting lists. If they need something that cannot be acquired, sure, or an operation they might go onto a list if there are a limited number of surgeons or theaters capable of performing it, but something that money is the only obstacle for is pretty much started asap. Voluntary (as in is not going to kill you or permanently decrease your quality of life without it) procedures and treatments generally have a waiting list, yes, which can be avoided by anyone with private health care.

So how is access to treatment that isn't common enough for everyone controlled? Some systems might do it with a lottery or a waiting list, but people still die if their number doesn't come up. Others might do it by charging fees... in which case someone can still die for lack of access to the treatment.

The sensible way? Wait list by urgency. If the treatment is something difficult to acquire, so a liver transplant, then that's the only fair way to do it. I realise people will still die, but the simple fact is that people will die anyway, and I'd personally much rather people died because they were unlucky than because someone who has more money than them bought an organ out from under them.

[Plushie]

I don't like that.

For one, does it mean that the duty of a signatory government which has a divine monarchy (like North Korea) is to obey the whims of its god-king? I'd be happier leaving any clause about the duty of obedience out.

In a literal sense, it's true. The governing administration of North Korea has a duty to obey the will of whichever Kim is in charge at the moment.

In a more philosophical sense, the people of North Korea are ultimately the sovereign, and this is true everywhere. Every monarchy, every dictatorship has been based in usurping the sovereignty of the people through fraud or force. Usurpation is not legitimate, so the legitimate sovereign of North Korea is still the people of North Korea. The administrative government following the will of any of the Kim's is just playing along with usurpation.

[Simon_Jester]

People under socialised healthcare with life threatening conditions (that can be treated by an available treatment) are not typically put onto waiting lists. If they need something that cannot be acquired, sure, or an operation they might go onto a list if there are a limited number of surgeons or theaters capable of performing it, but something that money is the only obstacle for is pretty much started asap...

Exactly my point. Look, I'm not calling this an injustice of socialized medicine. I am not a Tea Party idiot, kindly do not treat me as if I was one.

My point is that this is a simple, predictable, normal consequence of any health care system, socialized or otherwise. There is not enough of everything to go around. Some people will die because of a lack of things that were theoretically available, but not available to them in practice. This is normal- sad, but true.

Some systems will decide who dies based on money. Others on luck, or attempts to ration the treatment to those who will benefit most, or other possibilities. I am not trying to pass judgment on anything right now, because it's irrelevant to my point how the question of "who dies for lack of this limited-availability resource?" is answered.

So it is a bad idea to write a document implying that the state has a duty to take every medical treatment theoretically available, and make it available in practice to everyone. Granted, I don't think Rabid believes that... which is a damn good reason to change the wording of that passage and be rid of this whole silly argument.

In a literal sense, it's true. The governing administration of North Korea has a duty to obey the will of whichever Kim is in charge at the moment.

In a more philosophical sense, the people of North Korea are ultimately the sovereign, and this is true everywhere. Every monarchy, every dictatorship has been based in usurping the sovereignty of the people through fraud or force. Usurpation is not legitimate, so the legitimate sovereign of North Korea is still the people of North Korea. The administrative government following the will of any of the Kim's is just playing along with usurpation.

What would you do if you ran into a monarchy which was more popular than the local aristocrats the monarch kept in line...?

But more seriously? Again, I think that talking about who a government has a duty to obey is deeply counterproductive, if we want some kind of universal Declaration of Government Duties. A dictatorship which provides a fairly consistent rule of law, which feeds and cares for its people, which is not too onerous about civil rights violations... well, that's a bad government, yes, but we could do so much worse so very easily.

If this declaration is to be universal, there has to be a place in it for people whose politics you don't like. It should not simply be a "statement of the principles of this particular branch of we-love-our-brand-of-democracy." Trying to pretend that the values of a specific handful of governments are universal, and should be enforced against everyone, has made for a lot of problems in recent years.

The international system has to be able to function between nations that disagree with each other politically- you can't just declare any system of government you don't like to be a rogue state. So leave the definition of political legitimacy out of the text, and concentrate on what a legitimate government is supposed to do- on what its function is, not how it got there.

[Alkaloid]

So it is a bad idea to write a document implying that the state has a duty to take every medical treatment theoretically available, and make it available in practice to everyone. Granted, I don't think Rabid believes that... which is a damn good reason to change the wording of that passage and be rid of this whole silly argument.

Ah, right, I see. I wouldn't say that in that case those treatments would be available, theoretically or otherwise. I see your point though, it would create difficulties, a whole letter rather than the spirit of the law thing.

[Thanas]

I was thinking... There's a Universal Declaration of Human Rights, describing the Fundamental Rights of any individuals. It got me thinking, why not a Universal Declaration of a Government's Duties, describing (duh !) their Fundamental Duties ?

The German Grundgesetz already has this. It pretty much is obligated to ensure the basic freedoms as outlined in the relevant articles.

[Rabid]

Thanks for the info, Thanas. I'll get a look at it.