What are the pro and cons of the use of socio-economic obligations by government in its contract?
What are some of the benefits that might be generated and what are some of the downsides?
This is a timely and interesting question, as the exact function and limits of government in society are now sorely tested in the United States and around the world. The posted question is one of scale, reach and scope. Meanwhile, the debate rages: big vs small, intrusive vs aloof, technocratic vs participatory, representative vs corporatism, republic vs democracy, people oriented vs bureaucracy oriented, manipulative vs cooperative. When government exists only by the good graces of the citizens who fund it, the question also encompasses the questions of public domain vs. private wealth. The question is not whether government is 'good' or 'bad', 'necessary' or 'obsolete', but one of priorities and how the collective allocates resources. To the extent that governments and their people are obligated to each other, is the scale, reach and scope of that obligation exactly equal? Are the obligations bi-directional ...
This solution discusses the role of government with respect to the people it governs and the fulfillment of the social contract which exists between them.