Family on Government and vice versa Essay

As far as the government’s functions go, it is the unit of the family that is able to gain the most benefits. I view the family as the most basic and the most unprotected aspect of society. It is the government’s ability to provide regulations, guidelines, and protection that the family is able to continue its development. It might be raised at this point that the individual should be considered the most unprotected unit of society. However, I persist in believing that it is the family. The individual can still become a member of larger societal units. In fact, the individual can even go so far as to become a member of government. It is because of this fact that the collection of individuals called the family is the most in need of the services offered by the government that presides over it. However, there are forms of government wherein it is the family that comprises it. In oligarchies and monarchies, for example, the royal family comprises the governmental unit. It is in these cases that the interaction is reduced to one of family with family, of ruling class family with non-ruling class family, of bourgeois family with lower class family. This can also be likened to the type of interaction described to exist between the family and the society to which it belongs. In other ways, the family is also able to affect the government. Because the family forms the entirety of society and because it is able to mirror the mechanisms of society, it is also able to mirror and spread the mechanisms of government. The family is in charge of the education of the younger generation with regards to the powers of the government, the need to follow the impositions of the government, and also the specific laws and regulations set forth by the constitution. The task of propagating the ethics and morals of a good citizen that obeys the government lie on the shoulders of the members of the family. The concepts of restriction of behavior, meting punishments for unacceptable actions, and of obeying authority figures are also first understood by the child in the confines of the family. (Hegel, 2001) Society on Government and vice versa The government is said to be the regulating institution of society. It represents the majority of the population and provides frameworks as well as maintains peace and order. However, as I have stipulated, I believe that the inherent state in nature is peace and not war. Why then would a government be needed to maintain peace and order between its constituents and even with other governments? The state of war is not inherent in nature. However, it is also very much present in observable society. Why is this so? I believe that war stems from the inability of society to meet the needs of its members. This is in accordance with the propositions of Habermas (1998). Because of the society’s inability to completely meet the needs of its members, there is unrest and turmoil. War and violent conflict arise from these feelings of dissatisfaction. It is only through a strong power of the will that dissatisfaction is allowed to exist in an individual’s consciousness. I believe that the ineffective structuring of society creates feelings of unrest and dissatisfaction. When those with more are given more and those with less are asked for more, society is placed at an imbalance. This imbalance is unnatural. It is not the natural order of things. There is disequilibrium in society and as a result, there are individuals who are abused and unsatisfied. Again, this is also in accordance with the views of Marx and Engel (1978) regarding ruling class and non-ruling class. There is no chance for equilibrium or stability to be attained because as Marx and Engel (1978) stated, the ruling class practices hegemony. They use their ideologies to maintain power over the lower class. It is only with active revolt from the lower class that the structure of society can be changed. Thus war becomes an option to those whose dissatisfaction has become so great that they can no longer live with it. Without the government, these feelings of dissatisfaction would reign across the world. There would, indeed, be numerous states of war across the globe. Peace would be hard to find and individuals would find it impossible to achieve their true personal goals in life. A government is needed in order to regulate the interaction of the ruling class and the non-ruling class. Without the government, society would be in a constant flux of change and revolt. It is the institution of the government that allows society to remain its peace and as such to progress. However, it may well be the case that the government is simply a tool of the ruling class to maintain power, a means to their option of hegemony. This is exactly why even though there are governments in place today, wars still occur. There is still a disequilibrium in the social structure. Also, the government is not representative of the majority. This is a fact stressed by Kant (1983) to be of the utmost importance in considering government models and systems utilized in a given state. There is, therefore, a type of government that will best serve the purposes of society and the individual. Although there are numerous forms of government, not all are adaptive to society and its members. The mode of government is a point of greater consideration than the type of sovereignty afforded. (Kant, 1983) Society, however, plays a greater role in government. It is more than just a place wherein the functions of government can be practiced. In fact, it is my belief that society and government act in much the same way that the President and the House of Congress act in a Republic government. That is that society and government act as checks and balances of each other. Although it is true that there is no clear definition of legal power that society has on a particular government – in the way that government has on society – it is also true that the dominant form of politics in a state are defined by society. Because most governments rely on society’s good will towards it, society is able to check and balance the processes of the government. In modes of government involving votation, society dictates the candidates to be deemed more capable and reliable to place in position. This is done through the ideologies espoused by society. Thus two different political parties can be chosen from but the thrust of the resulting government will be based on the value systems established by society on its members. For modes of government, on the other, hand that do not include an electoral system, society is able to operate as a larger checks and balances system. Because monarchies and oligarchies and other similar forms of government give the ruler the right to decree laws and statutes by himself, society plays a crucial role. Social agreement or social rejection may be the only difference between a ruler’s decree of implementing the death penalty, for example, as a punishment to a severe crime. Thus we see that society plays a large role in defining government actions even in these individualistic or familial forms of governance. On this point, however, the revision and reconsideration of laws in systems with electoral systems and with more formal methods of passing laws is also highly dependent on society’s moral and ethical stand. The three-strike law for example, wherein criminals convicted of a crime three times receive a heavier sentence or a longer imprisonment period, was not revised because the constituents of the State of California did not agree to the provision that only severe crimes would be subject to this law.