Reciprocal relationship government and people

reciprocal relationship government and people

Trust and satisfaction with the government are the most important indicators of a functioning The results confirm the reciprocal relationship but reveal differences between the three investigated countries. People also read. The relationship between the government and the individual has long been a He is a policeman, and works with people who reveal homophobic and racist. have termed "reciprocal relationships," through inclusive, cross-sector alliances economy per se is relatively new, From to , a team of people from.

Part I: The Relationship Between People and Government

Thirteen years later, the entire city had service with miles of subterranean sewers. Some of these brick-lined sewers, including those under Arsenal Street, date to these original lines. New household technology taxed the system further. People replaced outhouses with indoor flush toilets starting in the s. Waste lines paralleled storm sewers and, like them, dumped their contents into the Mississippi River-a practice that continued until the late s.

In its first long-term joint venture, city and county governments formed the Metropolitan Sewer District in The waste treatment plant at Bissell Point incorporates some features retained from its nineteenth-century predecessor, ensuring that what goes into the river is far cleaner than its existing water.

A more recent arrival to local government's role in public health is garbage collection. Our nineteenth-century predecessors, asserts historian Andrew Hurley, were better at recycling than we are today. Our precursors, of course, used far fewer disposable containers, and threw away very few reusable ones. Further, most people owned or had access to hogs, to which they fed any edible scraps. The first rubbish collection in the city came during the s, but was run by private operators who contracted with the city to haul away refuse.

The city also contracted with private entrepreneurs until the early twentieth century to collect garbage for dumps and food scraps to feed hogs on an island in the Mississippi down river from St.

After a dispute between Mayor Rolla Wells and private contractors, the city initiated its own trash collection. Lungs at Work Air pollution was not so simple to solve.

Louis was widely reported to be the dirtiest place in the Mississippi Valley byjust five years after the first steamboat puffed into town. Seventy years later, the problem was out of hand. The city enacted its first smoke abatement ordinance in It helped a bit, until ruled unconstitutional by the Missouri Supreme Court four years later. Coal was the root of the problem.

Louisans burned it for heat and stoking industrial machinery, but used soft coal from Illinois.

Reciprocity (social and political philosophy) - Wikipedia

It was the least expensive on the local market, but also produced the most smoke when burned. The result was a constant smoky haze hanging over the city, sooty grime on buildings, and occasional problems with living conditions.

Soon after winning election as mayor inRolla Wells declared city smoke a public nuisance, and created the Chief Smoke Inspector position. He extended the Inspector's domain to include steamboats and barges, among the worst offenders, the following year. But as a prospering St. Louis expanded its economic base, it increased the pollution.

A Citizens' Smoke Abatement League worked in the s toward stiffer city ordinances to clean up the atmosphere. Growers refused to sell evergreens to be planted in the city, knowing they received too little sunlight and oxygen to survive. The Missouri Botanical Garden considered moving to preserve its collection of trees and plants. People complained of having to use auto headlights to see-even in the middle of the day. Smoke was getting worse by the day in late November of City government soon passed the stringent anti-smoke legislation for which citizens' groups had been calling for years.

Soft Illinois coal was banned from use in St. Louis in April,except in mechanical stokers. Home fires now burned Arkansas anthracite, which was harder but more costly coal that burned cleaner.

Air quality improved even more after the Mississippi Valley Fuel Company completed its gas pipeline from the South in Laclede Gas offered gas for heating at a lower cost than coal, providing the one factor to change the way people heated their homes. As industry converted from coal, air quality improved.

Military Affairs After acquiring the Louisiana Territory inThomas Jefferson commissioned a group to map the new acquisition, establish federal authority with Native American tribes, and gain greater scientific understanding of its plant and animal life.

Heading this expedition were Meriwether Lewis and William Clark. They started and ended their two-year mission, from toin St. Operations at the Army's Fort Bellefontaine on the Missouri River moved to the newly created Jefferson Barracks, south of the city, in With other forts farther upriver on the Missouri and Mississippi, Jefferson Barracks was a busy place.

Some troops trained at the fort by Military activity boosted the local economy. Louis was a main supplier to forts upriver and in the West. The government purchased goods and provisions in the more conveniently situated St. Louis rather than Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, or New Orleans.

reciprocal relationship government and people

It was a main staging area for the Mexican War as well, and a main construction site for Union ironclad ships during the War Between the States.

As a border city in a border state, St. Louis was particularly torn by the Civil War. While outstate Missouri was a battleground often in Confederate hands, the pro-Union state government relocated to St. Louis for the war. Deep divisions remained in the city despite its being controlled by Unionists.

Some lost property after refusing to take an oath of allegiance to the Union, others were even exiled for the conflict. James Eads' ironclad boat construction business was one of the few bright spots on the Civil War economy in St. The opposite was true during World War II. Central location made St. Louis relatively secure from attack from Axis powers, and transportation connections increased its advantages as a center for manufacturing war materiel. The Great Depression, starting in October ofhit St.

Louis harder than many cities. On the riverfront sat the country's largest "Hooverville" of people economically displaced by the Depression who were living in ramshackle temporary housing, sarcastically named for President Herbert Hoover. Louis worker in four was out of work.

People struggled through anddespite early relief programs in the New Deal. Local relief roles toppedin An improved economy and more effective works programs reduced the out-of-work to 35, by Much of the increased employment came through the Works Progress Administration WPAcreated in to provide jobs through public works and community improvements. Public Housing New Dealers envisioned public housing as a vehicle to provide a minimum housing standard for Americans.

By the s, governments in cities like St. Louis wished to remove the worst housing through slum clearance, but left no place for displaced poor to move. The Housing Act allowed local governments to establish public housing authorities to use government funds for housing with rents scaled according to income. Louis Housing Authority opened in to facilitate such programs.

In its first year the Authority completed Carr Square Village on the city's near north side; three years later, Clinton Peabody Terrace opened. A fresh infusion of federal dollars through the Housing and Redevelopment Act of inspired further public housing. Designs for a new high-rise complex, Pruitt-Igoe, in St. Similarly, dinner-for-dinner may be the expectation among members of a round robin dinner club. But when the nature of the transaction is more loosely defined, or is embedded in a complex personal relationship, an appropriate reciprocal response often requires spontaneity, imagination, and even a lack of premeditation about where, what, and how soon.

Fitting the response to the recipient. Another aspect of qualitative fit is what counts subjectively, for the recipient, as a response in-kind. When we respond to people who have benefited us, it seems perverse to give them things they do not regard as benefits. The general principle here is that, other things equal, a return of good for good received will require giving something that will actually be appreciated as good by the recipient — at least eventually.

Similarly for the negative side. When we respond to bad things, reciprocity presumably requires a return that the recipient regards as a bad thing. A third aspect of qualitative fit is the presence or absence of circumstances that undermine the usual expectations about reciprocity.

The example, in a slightly different form, goes back to Plato. The point is that in this unusual circumstance, reciprocity as well as other considerations may require that the recipient not get what he wants at the moment. Rather, it may be that the recipient should be given what he needs, in some objective sense, whether he ever comes to appreciate that it is good for him. A final determinant of qualitative fit is the general rationale for having the norm of reciprocity in the first place.

For example, if the ultimate point of practicing reciprocity is to produce stable, productive, fair, and reliable social interactions, then there may be some tensions between things that accomplish this general goal and things that satisfy only the other three determinants.

As Plato observed RepublicBook Iis not rational to harm our enemies in the sense of making them worse, as enemies or as people, than they already are. We may reply to Plato by insisting that reciprocity merely requires us to make them worse-off, not worse, period. But if it turns out that the version of the reciprocity norm we are using actually has the consequence of doing both, or at any rate not improving the situation, then we will have undermined the point of having it. Another definitional issue concerns proportionality.

What counts as too little, or too much in return for what we receive from others? In some cases, such as borrowing a sum of money from a friend who has roughly the same resources, a prompt and exact return of the same amount seems right. Less will be too little, and a return with interest will often be too much, between friends. But in other cases, especially in exchanges between people who are very unequal in resources, a literal reading of tit-for-tat may be a perverse rule — one that undermines the social and personal benefits of the norm of reciprocity itself.

Reciprocity (social and political philosophy)

How, for example, may badly disadvantaged people reciprocate for the public or private assistance they receive?

Requiring a prompt and exact return of the benefit received may defeat the general purpose of the norm of reciprocity by driving disadvantaged people further into debt. Yet to waive the debt altogether, or to require only some discounted amount seems to defeat the purpose also. Anglo-American legal theory and practice has examples of two options for dealing with this problem.

One is to require a return that is equal to the benefit received, but to limit the use of that requirement in special cases.

Bankruptcy rules are in part designed to prevent downward, irrecoverable spirals of debt while still exacting a considerable penalty. Similarly, there are rules for rescinding unconscionable contracts, preventing unjust enrichment, and dealing with cases in which contractual obligations have become impossible to perform. These rules typically have considerable transaction costs.

Another kind of option is to define a reciprocal return with explicit reference to ability to pay. Progressive tax rates are an example of this.

Considered in terms of reciprocity, this option seems based on an equal sacrifice interpretation of proportionality, rather than an equal benefit one. Reciprocity and justice[ edit ] Standard usage of the term justice shows its close general connection to the concept of reciprocity. Justice includes the idea of fairness, and that in turn includes treating similar cases similarly, giving people what they deserve, and apportioning all other benefits and burdens in an equitable way.

Those things, further, involve acting in a principled, impartial way that forbids playing favorites and may require sacrifices. All of those things are certainly in the neighborhood of the elements of reciprocity e. Reward and punishment[ edit ] Discussions of merit, desert, blame, and punishment inevitably involve questions about the fittingness and proportionality of our responses to others, and retributive theories of punishment put the norm of reciprocity at their center.

The idea is to make the punishment fit the crime. This differs from utilitarian theories of punishment, which may use fittingness and proportionality as constraints, but whose ultimate commitment is to make punishment serve social goals such as general deterrence, public safety, and the rehabilitation of wrongdoers. Justice and war[ edit ] In just war theorynotions of fittingness and proportionality are central, at least as constraints both on the justification of a given war, and the methods used to prosecute it.

When war represents a disproportionate response to a threat or an injury, it raises questions of justice related to reciprocity. When war fighting employs weapons that do not discriminate between combatants and noncombatants, it raises questions of justice related to reciprocity.

A profound sense of injustice related to a lack of reciprocity — for example, between those privileged by socioeconomic status, political power, or wealth, and those who are less privileged, and oppressed — sometimes leads to war in the form of revolutionary or counterrevolutionary violence.

It has been argued that the use of autonomous or remote controlled weaponized drones violate reciprocity. Legitimation of social, political, and legal obligations[ edit ] A very deep and persistent line of philosophical discussion explores the way in which reciprocity can resolve conflicts between justice and self-interest, and can justify the imposition or limitation of social, political, and legal obligations that require individuals to sacrifice their own interests.

This aspect of the philosophical discussion of reciprocity attempts to bring together two ways of approaching a very basic question: What is the fundamental justification for the existence of social and political institutions — institutions that impose and enforce duties and obligations upon their members?

reciprocal relationship government and people

This immediately justifies rules that are mutually advantageous, but it raises questions about requiring obedience from people whenever it turns out that they will be disadvantaged by following the rules, or can get away with disobeying them. So the problem becomes one of showing whether, and when, it might actually be mutually advantageous to follow the rules of justice even when it is inconvenient or costly to do so.

Social contract theorists often invoke the value of reciprocal relationships to deal with this.

reciprocal relationship government and people

Many human beings need help from one another from time to time in order to pursue their individual interests effectively. So if we can arrange a system of reciprocity in which all the benefits we are required to contribute are typically returned to us in full or morethat may justify playing by the rules—even in cases where it looks as though we can get away with not doing so.

Another obvious answer to the question of why people organize themselves into groups, however, is in order to achieve levels of cooperation needed for improving society generally — for example by improving public health, and society-wide levels of education, wealth, or individual welfare.

This also gives a reason for rules of justice, but again raises problems about requiring individuals to sacrifice their own welfare for the good of others—especially when some individuals might not share the particular goals for social improvements at issue. Here too, the value of reciprocal relationships can be invoked, this time to limit the legitimacy of the sacrifices a society might require.

For one thing, it seems perverse to require sacrifices in pursuit of some social goal if it turns out those sacrifices are unnecessary, or in vain because the goal cannot be achieved. To some philosophers, a theory of justice based on reciprocity or fairness, or fair play is an attractive middle ground between a thoroughgoing concern with individual well-being and a thoroughgoing concern with social well-being.

It may also be that there is something to be gained, philosophically, from considering what obligations of generalized reciprocity present generations of human beings may have to future ones. Mutuality[ edit ] What is the relation between reciprocity and lovefriendship or family relationships? See the reference below to Okin. The argument is that families can be grossly unjust, and have often been so. If that is right, then justice and reciprocity must define the boundaries within which we pursue even the most intimate relationships.

He proposes that the highest or best form of friendship involves a relationship between equals — one in which a genuinely reciprocal relationship is possible.

This thread appears throughout the history of Western ethics in discussions of personal and social relationships of many sorts: