What is the proper role of government (and why)?

[Chris Cuilla]

Many of the discussions in this forum have aspects that criticize (from all areas of the political spectrum) government and its actions. Sometimes the criticism is too much action, other times not enough, other times simply the wrong action. The governments in question are not limited by geography (governments across the globe have been the subject from time to time).

My central purpose here is to discuss and debating the views to the basic questions:

- What is the purpose of government?
- What is its role?
- Why should government's relationship to its citizenry be/look like?
- Why?

Undoubtedly there are additional, related and tangental questions...but this should get things started.

This isn't intended as a spring board to simply bash one government or another...but simply an open discussion of, ideally speaking, what government should be or do and why. Imagine it as the question..."You and a thousand of your closest friends are stranded on an island...what should/would you do to govern yourselves as a society...what would your ideal government look/act like and why? What would it do and not do?"

[MacRR]

Would this island government maufacture partially hydrongenated coconut oil?

[Chris Cuilla]

Would this island government maufacture partially hydrongenated coconut oil?

Do you want it to?

[MacRR]

Let's do this-

We'll divide the citizens of this new island into north and south.

The south gets to eat trans NUTS and their MILK from the coconuts because their government sits back on the beach and watches sunrises.

The north gets to eat seafood and natural coconuts only because they decided it's harmful to suck on trans NUTS for the MILK.

Whichever end lives longest gets their form of government to stick around.

[Chris Cuilla]

Let's do this-

We'll divide the citizens of this new island into north and south.

The south gets to eat trans NUTS and their MILK from the coconuts because their government sits back on the beach and watches sunrises.

The north gets to eat seafood and natural coconuts only because they decided it's harmful to suck on trans NUTS for the MILK.

Whichever end lives longest gets their form of government to stick around.

I thought maybe you wanted to have a serious discussion (I did/do).

[MacRR]

well- i am just joking around. You know your thread will get love- it's just early. So you're stuck with me in a pre-holiday leaving work early happy ass self - for now.

I can't wait for the witty bush island rule metaphor/take.

[Chris Cuilla]

well- i am just joking around. You know your thread will get love- it's just early. So you're stuck with me in a pre-holiday leaving work early happy ass self - for now.

I can't wait for the witty bush island rule metaphor/take.

It's cool. It is a bit of a weighty issue as people are mostly thinking about shopping and taking time off from work.

[hardeeharhar]

How big of a government are we talking about and what level. A village of three people will have a decidedly difference governance system than a nation of 14 billion...

[Chris Cuilla]

How big of a government are we talking about and what level. A village of three people will have a decidedly difference governance system than a nation of 14 billion...

I am talking about general principles that (I think) apply regardless of population size.

[BRussell]

A thousand friends on an island is too hypothetical. In that situation, no government at all would probably work fine. But much of the real controversy between liberals and conservatives involves government regulation of our corporate overlords. In my view, government increases our liberty when it reduces the power that large wealthy corporations have over us. In the view of many conservatives, corporations should use their wealth and power to control us economically, while a conservative government controls our private and sexual lives. (Of course they wouldn't put it like that, but that's sure what it seems like.) A good liberal government will make sure we are free both from government control of our private lives as well as corporate control of our economic lives.

[Frank777]

A good liberal government will make sure we are free both from government control of our private lives as well as corporate control of our economic lives.

You've obviously never lived in Canada.

[MarcUK]

Many of the discussions in this forum have aspects that criticize (from all areas of the political spectrum) government and its actions. Sometimes the criticism is too much action, other times not enough, other times simply the wrong action. The governments in question are not limited by geography (governments across the globe have been the subject from time to time).

My central purpose here is to discuss and debating the views to the basic questions:

- What is the purpose of government?
- What is its role?
- Why should government's relationship to its citizenry be/look like?
- Why?

Undoubtedly there are additional, related and tangental questions...but this should get things started.

This isn't intended as a spring board to simply bash one government or another...but simply an open discussion of, ideally speaking, what government should be or do and why. Imagine it as the question..."You and a thousand of your closest friends are stranded on an island...what should/would you do to govern yourselves as a society...what would your ideal government look/act like and why? What would it do and not do?"

I havn't actually thought about government much, so I'll suggest some really stupid naive answers and hopefully we can expand on them and i'll learn something.

The purpose of government is to responsibly provide guidance and leadership for the prosperity of the nation, which I guess is its role too.

Its relationship to its citizenry should be one of mutual respect and understanding.

Why? because successful government only works when the citizenry trust and want to receive guidance from the governers, and the governers must trust and accept the responsible wishes of a nation.

[gregmightdothat]

A thousand friends on an island is too hypothetical. In that situation, no government at all would probably work fine.
Clearly, you've never read Lord of the Flies ;)

[AsLan^]

Well, I'll help with a list (seeings as I don't feel like writing an essay ;) )

- Infrastructure to facilitate food production
- Infrastructure to facilitate trade
- Infrastructure to facilitate transportation
- Infrastructure to facilitate communication
- Health and well being for citizens (including environment)
- Provide validation of the ownership of property
- Organize a military for defense

- Regulate all of the above to optimize production and well being in the future

[SpamSandwich]

What is the purpose of government?

I'm still trying to figure that one out.

[SpamSandwich]

A good liberal government will make sure we are free both from government control of our private lives as well as corporate control of our economic lives.

That could only apply to a theoretical Libertarian system. It sure doesn't describe the Democrats in the America I know.

[edit: Took out mild profanity, for the children.]

[shetline]

I haven't had much time to do anything with it lately, but I've started up a whole web site for discussing this very same subject...

http://www.anewconstitution.com/ <-- fixed link

Maybe over Christmas vacation, at least once I've stopped squirming in pain from a fresh abdominal incision, I'll finish up my first draft constitution as post it.

[SpamSandwich]

I haven't had much time to do anything with it lately, but I've started up a whole web site for discussing this very same subject...

http://www.anewconsitution.com/

Maybe over Christmas vacation, at least once I've stopped squirming in pain from a fresh abdominal incision, I'll finish up my first draft constitution as post it.


Nothing there yet?

[shetline]

Nothing there yet?
Not much. Just an intro describing what I intend to do with the web site, and a functioning but very inactive posting forum. The intro for the site does, in a way, begin to form an answer to Chris's question.

Also, it helps if I spell the link correctly. :) (I'm in a miserable posture for typing very well at the moment.)

http://www.anewconstitution.com/

[shetline]

(accidental dupe deleted)

[BRussell]

Fresh abdominal incision? What happened shetline?

[shetline]

Fresh abdominal incision? What happened shetline?
Oh, just a little surgery, the details of which I'd rather keep to myself.

[spindler]

The "government" simply represents the will of the people. If the people decide that alcohol should be prohibited or that such and such a group should now have equal rights, that is the will of the people speaking, not "the government".

Both conservatives and liberals, but especially conservatives, like to hide behind the government and use double standards. Here's the trick everyone uses:

When 50% of Americans want guns to be limited so there are less innocent victims, conservatives like to claim that "the government shouldn't be telling me I can't own a gun". Well, it's not "the government" telling you, it is your fellow citizens telling you that it is a danger to them.

So then conservatives turn around and want to regulate marriage. They claim it's just "common sense" that gays shouldn't marry. But this is simply government, i.e. the will of the people, or people getting together and voting on what they want their society to be.

But some liberals play the same game. When talking about abortion they say "The government can't tell me what to do with my body! Keep your laws off my body!" Well, it's not "the government" who is telling you what to do. It is your fellow citizens, voicing the will of the people, telling you that what you are doing is not moral and can't fit in with a just society.

So there is hypocrisy on all sides, but especially with conservatives. They scream that "the government" shouldn't tax them (to help the poor). But then when they want to step into other's lives, then it's no longer "the government". It's just good old fashioned "common sense".

[hardeeharhar]

I would like for there to be a calculation that one could use for governmental regulation of an individual's behavior. Its calculus would weigh the benefits of the individual to the costs/benefits of the society at large. Costs to the individual are taken upon the person entirely for living so freely. That way people are only allowed to do bad things that negatively affect themselves -- bad things that disproportionately negatively affect society as individuals and a whole are forbidden.

Affectation is purely physical in this system. If you are offended by something, I don't care etc....

A government's role, in its poltical level, is meant to codify this ever changing calculus and enforce punishment of what the formula has deemed forbidden.

The same goes for governance of different governments.

Unfortunately, no such formula exists.

[tonton]

Well, I'll help with a list (seeings as I don't feel like writing an essay ;) )

- Infrastructure to facilitate food production
- Infrastructure to facilitate trade
- Infrastructure to facilitate transportation
- Infrastructure to facilitate communication
- Health and well being for citizens (including environment)
- Provide validation of the ownership of property
- Organize a military for defense

- Regulate all of the above to optimize production and well being in the future

I agree.

[Chris Cuilla]

A thousand friends on an island is too hypothetical.

In that case make up you own number. I am looking for opinions on basic principles of what government's role should be.

In my view, government increases our liberty when it...

So, do you believe that the proper role of government is to "increases our liberty"?

A good liberal government will make sure we are free both from government control of our private lives as well as corporate control of our economic lives.

OK. So I think you are saying that you believe a "good" government or the role of government is to ensure or preserve the freedom of its citizenry. Is that right?

[Chris Cuilla]

Well, I'll help with a list (seeings as I don't feel like writing an essay ;) )

- Infrastructure to facilitate food production
- Infrastructure to facilitate trade
- Infrastructure to facilitate transportation
- Infrastructure to facilitate communication
- Health and well being for citizens (including environment)
- Provide validation of the ownership of property
- Organize a military for defense

- Regulate all of the above to optimize production and well being in the future

Why do you think government should provide these things? Are their any disavantages or potential pitfalls of this arrangement? Are there other possible means for these to be established? Will they not be established if the government doesn't do it? To what extent should a government go to ensure "Health and well being for citizens" for example? How would it accomplish this goal?

[Chris Cuilla]

The "government" simply represents the will of the people.

Are you saying that proper role of the government is simply to enforce the majority rule/view/desire?

[Chris Cuilla]

I would like for there to be a calculation that one could use for governmental regulation of an individual's behavior. Its calculus would weigh the benefits of the individual to the costs/benefits of the society at large. Costs to the individual are taken upon the person entirely for living so freely. That way people are only allowed to do bad things that negatively affect themselves -- bad things that disproportionately negatively affect society as individuals and a whole are forbidden.

Affectation is purely physical in this system. If you are offended by something, I don't care etc....

A government's role, in its poltical level, is meant to codify this ever changing calculus and enforce punishment of what the formula has deemed forbidden.

The same goes for governance of different governments.

Unfortunately, no such formula exists.

Given that no such forumula exists, what is "plan B"? Given that no one (government included) can do these calculations (with any accuracy at all) what then should the role of government be (and why)? Should it still try its best to "weigh the benefits of the individual to the costs/benefits of the society at large" and implement policy and legislation to support the conclusions?

[hardeeharhar]

Absolutely, with the caveat that they must seek to do the least amount of damage considering the unknowns... It is more than just an ideal, it is the best we can try to do as well...

[spindler]

Are you saying that proper role of the government is simply to enforce the majority rule/view/desire?

Government is what happens when individuals in isolation can't solve a problem, so they get together and put restrictions on others in at least some way. For example, without government overisght and laws, it would be impossible to always buy safe meat at the supermarket. You'd need to check the standards of every seller and a lawyer to read over the contract. So we get together, and for the good of society, we OUTLAW selling meat that makes you sick.

Parking tickets are government. Being opposed to gay marriage is government. Saying that kids can't drive until 16 is government. Government is simply people getting together and shaping society.

The question is when and to what degree we should do this. In your above quote you imply that government would ALWAYS do this. Just because I am in favor of opposing my will on others sometimes, like say to guarantee that the poor don't starve, it doesn't mean that I will do it ALL the time. I think it would be better for society if we outlawed crappy music and made them at least appreciate a Beatles album. But of course I wouldn't write that into law.

[Chris Cuilla]

For example, without government overisght and laws, it would be impossible to always buy safe meat at the supermarket.

Impossible? That is a pretty bold claim. What support do you have for this claim? In order to believe this claim, I have to believe that people will sell products that either deliberately harm their customers or will do nothing to fix a situation when they accidentally do so. Why would they do this?

Just because I am in favor of opposing my will on others sometimes, like say to guarantee that the poor don't starve, it doesn't mean that I will do it ALL the time.

I think history of what happens when we establish the majority rule (or simply overt government power) at the expense of minorities suggests that you might be wrong.

How about this...what happens when the government, representing the "will of the people" chooses to outlaw some activity that you engage in and consider to be harmless? Is it still the role of the government to enforce the "will of the people" or is there something else that government ought to be doing?

[Chris Cuilla]

Absolutely, with the caveat that they must seek to do the least amount of damage considering the unknowns... It is more than just an ideal, it is the best we can try to do as well...

So you think that government's role is to (actively) pursue benefits for the majority of its citizenry even if there are costs to individuals or minorities (assuming these aggregate benefits outweigh the costs)?

[hardeeharhar]

Um, where did you get that from?

I make no mention of majority/minority.... so I am not sure where you got it from...

Edit: and just to cut you off at the pass. That isn't at all what I was suggesting. The actions of individuals should be regulated iff they negatively affect other individuals more so than they positively affect themselves... This doesn't break down when you start grouping people, and I am sorry you don't understand that...

Eg: The physical costs of preventing homosexuals from marrying is greater than the physical costs of allowing them to marry -- essentially the added need for corporations to provide benefits to partners...

Just to reiterate, in this framework the effect on the psyche is bullshit.

[Chris Cuilla]

Um, where did you get that from?

I make no mention of majority/minority.... so I am not sure where you got it from...

Perhaps I am misreading you, but you seem to have an idea that basically goes like this:

If the benefits of some government action preventing some action by an individual will benefit the "society at large" then it is OK. Can you provide an example?

Edit: and just to cut you off at the pass. That isn't at all what I was suggesting. The actions of individuals should be regulated iff they negatively affect other individuals more so than they positively affect themselves...

And this statement appears to confirm what I am understanding.

Perhaps a solid example would help me understand your point better.

This doesn't break down when you start grouping people, and I am sorry you don't understand that...

Have no idea what you mean here.

[groverat]

I will tell you exactly what the purpose of the government is:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Question answered.

[spindler]

Impossible? That is a pretty bold claim. What support do you have for this claim? In order to believe this claim, I have to believe that people will sell products that either deliberately harm their customers or will do nothing to fix a situation when they accidentally do so. Why would they do this?

OK, the word "impossible" may be pushing it. What is there that makes you believe that ANY group of people might not attempt to cut corners in the meat they sell to save money, and in the process take risks? What makes you believe people are so nice when money is concerned that I should trust them?

You can propose a non-government solution, but it must meet some requirements. I need a GUARANTEE that if the meat is not healthy then someone will be punished, unless they have a rare reasonable excuse. But for that excuse to be valid, they must apply all reasonable techniques possible to make sure there meat is safe. I DON'T want to have to read a legal document before I buy meat from each vendor. I DON'T in any way, shape, or form want to have to "trust" anyone that sells me meat. I DON'T want to have to read a legal document to find out the exact consequences for the person if it is their own fault the meat is bad. I DON'T want to have to be an expert in techniques for keeping meat safe. I DON'T want to have to figure out which techniques are necessary and which are extra.

Can you propose a complete solution how the free market is going to handle this without government intervention and iron clad laws? I don't want to have to choose between seven standards of cleanliness when buying meat like you have to choose between seven standards for DVD burners.



I think history of what happens when we establish the majority rule (or simply overt government power) at the expense of minorities suggests that you might be wrong.


Here's where you are willfully making this an all or nothing argument. A reasonable person can conclude that safe meat is a basic necessity, but forcing the other guy not to have tattoos is out of bounds. As another example, you have Christian kooks who want to have their say about gay marriage, but where so friggin lazy that they sat by as O.J. Simpson and Jon Benet Ramsey gossip became normalized. Common sense tells you you have to have YOUR OWN damn act together before you start telling others what to do.

So when you make laws restricting choices for the good of society, you do them in an extremely cautious way. Outlawing unsafe meat is not like outlawing alcohol or tobacco or long hair. Common sense tells us that.

Sometimes we MUST impose our will on others. Some people think that locking a child in the closet for three hours when they were "bad" is normal. Sane people realize the kids were probably "bad" because they had kooks for parents. So we outlaw locking kids in the closet for three hours. The sane people outlaw things that seem to completely fall out of the bounds of a just society.

Yes, there is some risk in imposing our will on others. We might get it wrong. But it's odd, you personally want to outlaw gay marriage, IINM, and you are against polygamy. Why outlaw polygamy? Some women might want to share a man. Why outlaw it? We should make very careful basic restrictions to outlaw the parts of human nature we have determined to be harmful and destructive, when possible.

[hardeeharhar]

If the benefits of some government action preventing some action by an individual will benefit the "society at large" then it is OK. Can you provide an example?

Wrong. I didn't say it had to benefit the society, I said it had to prevent indefensible damage to society (individuals within society really). Preventing logging companies from clear cutting a track of land on a hilltop above an estuary is an example.

[Chris Cuilla]

OK, the word "impossible" may be pushing it. What is there that makes you believe that ANY group of people might not attempt to cut corners in the meat they sell to save money, and in the process take risks? What makes you believe people are so nice when money is concerned that I should trust them?

Because people will stop buying their product or service if they do?

Your reasoning requires product providers to be both greedy (cut corners to make more profit...but harm customers) and not greedy (not care that they will lose this customer and probably others for the future because of their harmful product). How do you reconcile this?

I need a GUARANTEE that if the meat is not healthy then someone will be punished

Punished how?

But for that excuse to be valid, they must apply all reasonable techniques possible to make sure there meat is safe.

You mean things like ensuring product area cleanliness? Shutting down operations if illness has been discovered? Firing vendors that have provided ingredients that caused the illnesses? Stuff like that?

I DON'T want to have to read a legal document before I buy meat from each vendor.

Of course you don't. Nor should you. It should be noted that you don't have to buy it at all either.

I DON'T in any way, shape, or form want to have to "trust" anyone that sells me meat.

Do you buy meat (or other food products) now?

I DON'T want to have to read a legal document to find out the exact consequences for the person if it is their own fault the meat is bad. I DON'T want to have to be an expert in techniques for keeping meat safe. I DON'T want to have to figure out which techniques are necessary and which are extra.

Of course. Nor would anyone. Nor should you assume that you'd have to. Nor should you assume that you have to buy their products at all.

Can you propose a complete solution how the free market is going to handle this without government intervention and iron clad laws?

Well the primary check on producers providing harmful products is simply failure in the market. Secondarily direct deception and fraud is a reasonable event for government involvement through the court and judicial system.

Here's where you are willfully making this an all or nothing argument.

No I'm not. I merely suggesting that majority control and government control tend to slide out of control until everyone's freedom is gone. In fact there have already been example of people in these very forums using the existence of current government intervention as the justification fo further government intervention. Reasoning like that is what puts us onto a "slippery slope" of continually expansive government intervention. The thing that seemed "unreasonable" yesterday becomes "common sense" today or tomorrow.

A reasonable person can conclude that safe meat is a basic necessity, but forcing the other guy not to have tattoos is out of bounds.

And a reasonable (I think) person also knows that they are not forced to buy any product that they do not have assurances about its fitness for use and safety. But it doesn't require a government intervention. A decent modern day example is something like UL labs.

Underwriters Laboratories was created during the World Fair when Thomas Edison demonstrated electric light bulbs. Effectively, concerns were put towards Edison on the safety of his devices, someone from the crowd charged for his service of assuring the safety of everyone by inspecting Edisons devices, thus UL was born.

Sometimes we MUST impose our will on others. Some people think that locking a child in the closet for three hours when they were "bad" is normal. Sane people realize the kids were probably "bad" because they had kooks for parents. So we outlaw locking kids in the closet for three hours. The sane people outlaw things that seem to completely fall out of the bounds of a just society.

I think we certainly have a different situation when it comes to children. I am talking about adults making their own choices about what they can or cannot do...to their own bodies.

Yes, there is some risk in imposing our will on others.

I'd say there is huge risk. By that's just my opinion.

But it's odd, you personally want to outlaw gay marriage

No, I don't. Stop lying.

and you are against polygamy. Why outlaw polygamy?

I may believe that both same-sex marriage and polygamy are morally wrong...but it is one thing to believe something to be wrong and another for me to impose that on someone else legislatively through the force of goverment. I do not support the legislative approach. See...this appears to be where we differ...I have come to the place where I am willing to allow people their freedom so long as they do not infringe upon the rights, person and property of another...or attempt to deceive and defraud another person(s) in an otherwise free exchange. It diesn't mean I will agree with (morally speaking) the choices all people make. Indeed many I will not. But you seem unwilling to let go of the leesh and let people make their own choices on some matters (they just happen to be different issues than the one's coveted by those you deride and condemn.)

NOTE: In regard to polygamy and marrying children (which I understand does seem to happen in those arrangement)...again we have a different matter. Adults? They should be free to do as they wish.

[Chris Cuilla]

Wrong. I didn't say it had to benefit the society, I said it had to prevent indefensible damage to society (individuals within society really)..

Well, in fairness, you never said that before.

[hardeeharhar]

Well, in fairness, you never said that before.

I never used that terminology, no... But the balance of damage to society and benefit to individual determines defensibility of an individual's act....

[Chris Cuilla]

I never used that terminology, no... But the balance of damage to society and benefit to individual determines defensibility of an individual's act....

See, no I think you are playing rhetorical games.

What you seem to be saying (as succinctly as I can phrase it) is that if it is beneficial to the most people then the least people (where this could be one person) should be stopped from doing it.

This is a very tricky standard. For one it is difficult (maybe impossible) to calculate (as you have stated) the benefits and the costs or damages. Second, the standard of what is "harmful to society" is continuall expanding (due to its initial vagueness). The example you provided (logging and estuary) could be handled through basic property rights and related infringements between two property owners, and so is much more narrow than the vague and ambiguous "harmful to society at large" standard. I get nervous if we cannot be more concrete about such things (especially when we are talking about handing over power to something...government)...because it is not hard to see the opporunities for abuse (even if accomplished only gradually).

[hardeeharhar]

See, no I think you are playing rhetorical games.

What you seem to be saying (as succinctly as I can phrase it) is that if it is beneficial to the most people then the least people (where this could be one person) should be stopped from doing it.

This is a very tricky standard. For one it is difficult (maybe impossible) to calculate (as you have stated) the benefits and the costs or damages. Second, the standard of what is "harmful to society" is continuall expanding (due to its initial vagueness). The example you provided (logging and estuary) could be handled through basic property rights and related infringements between two property owners, and so is much more narrow than the vague and ambiguous "harmful to society at large" standard. I get nervous if we cannot be more concrete about such things (especially when we are talking about handing over power to something...government)...because it is not hard to see the opporunities for abuse (even if accomplished only gradually).

The interests of the society in general with respect to the estuary is more significant than even if the lumber company owned the property up to and including the estuary... Property rights and responsibilities extend beyond just ownership. But on this point, you seem to disagree.

It isn't a vague standard just because I cannot write down a formula for all situations right now, but we can in principle use economic principles to guide our forumlaic approach. We consider probabilities that someone calling upon death of say, Rosie O'Donnell, would be considered legitimate etc to regulate the actions of individuals.

How do you think the justice system works as is?

[Chris Cuilla]

The interests of the society in general with respect to the estuary is more significant than even if the lumber company owned the property up to and including the estuary...

How so?

Property rights and responsibilities extend beyond just ownership. But on this point, you seem to disagree.

Since I don't know exactyly what you mean...I can't agree or disagree. Please explain.

It isn't a vague standard just because I cannot write down a formula for all situations right now,

No. You are correct. But it is a vague standard.

but we can in principle use economic principles to guide our forumlaic approach.

What's interesting is that if we choose a free-market approach, we let the "economic principles" sort all of this out without having to use government intervention and planning to calculate the (impossible) formulas and possibilities. In other words that markets decisions (assuming that all have been free to make their own choices and not forced into choices by another party private or government) reflect the collective choices and wishes and values of all of its participants. They reflect that calculus being done without the need to do it centrally.

[hardeeharhar]

What's interesting is that if we choose a free-market approach, we let the "economic principles" sort all of this out without having to use government intervention and planning to calculate the (impossible) formulas and possibilities. In other words that markets decisions (assuming that all have been free to make their own choices and not forced into choices by another party private or government) reflect the collective choices and wishes and values of all of its participants. They reflect that calculus being done without the need to do it centrally.

I won't continue after this point since you haven't added anything to your own thread.

The free market does not respond to future consequences all that well. We can see this is the various bubbles that have occured throughout history and the subsequent depressions/recessions that have followed. The market forces are a here and now thing -- and when longevitiy is in question they act far too late. Laizez-faire only works if there is a safety net.

Edit: You do realize you suggesting that we take a free market approach, and legalize murder and let the market take care of it...

[Chris Cuilla]

The free market does not respond to future consequences all that well. We can see this is the various bubbles that have occured throughout history and the subsequent depressions/recessions that have followed.

Actually...those situations have arisen because of government involvement (specifically in the supply of money and credit). Do a little research on this and you'll understand what I mean. Those were not failures of the free-market but instead failures that occurred because of government's intrusion into the free-market.

The market forces are a here and now thing -- and when longevitiy is in question they act far too late.

Actually this statement is more true of government than the free-market. Let's take the whole trans-fat thing as one example...the market was already responding to customer desires and demands by eliminating trans-fats. The train was already moving. The government example is the moves by various municipalities to ban them. Day-late-dollar-short. "Leading" by looking in the rear view mirror. Trying furiously to jump on the band-wagon.

Furthermore, your assumption (that government can deal with longer term issues better than the market) contains a fallacy and that is that government is able to see long-term better than the market participants (it cannot) and that it will be responsible for long-term thinking (it has not and does not).

Laizez-faire only works if there is a safety net.

This is your opinion. In fact the "safety net" (so to speak) is failure. If producers provide products that consumers do not desire (either because or price, features, quality or safety) they will fail...and quickly.

Edit: You do realize you suggesting that we take a free market approach, and legalize murder and let the market take care of it...

Where have I suggested the legalization of murder? Quit lying. That is pure straw man. I have never, ever suggested any such thing.

[hardeeharhar]

Since you claim to know that the government has caused all socioeconomic ills, why not prove it?


Free market approaches to crime would of course require that murder be legal and the individuals punished in the free market....

Edit: The government, exluding itself from acting in the market (although ours does for a variety of reasons) has every reason to take the most cautious approach towards the future in terms of things that directly affect its citizens. If it doesn't, it is because its leaders are short sighted or mentally challenged, or more likely, both.

[Chris Cuilla]

Since you claim to know that the government has caused all socioeconomic ills, why not prove it?

Straw man. I have not made such a claim.

Free market approaches to crime would of course require that murder be legal and the individuals punished in the free market....

Straw man. I have not claimed that murder should be legal. You are reaching. I assume this because you have no foundation for your position. In fact...this (protecting an individual and their property from the violence and force of another person or group) is a perfectly legitimate role for government in my own view. Minimally, I believe that a government's role is to protect the liberty and property of its people from infringement, violence, force from others (domestic and foreign)...and to protect the integrity of free exchanges between people (domestic and foreign) from force, coercion, fraud and deceit. The foundational principles are the minimum. But when governments move beyond this, they step into dangerous territory very often becoming the victimizer of some person and their property through the use of (government-sanctioned force).

Edit: The government, exluding itself from acting in the market (although ours does for a variety of reasons) has every reason to take the most cautious approach towards the future in terms of things that directly affect its citizens. If it doesn't, it is because its leaders are short sighted or mentally challenged, or more likely, both.

And you seem to be assuming that government is immune from this malady. I suggest it is even more likely for government to think short-term since a) politicians are thinking about the very next election, and b) it isn't really their money they are spending, and c) because it is the "government" it is this aire of being in the right no matter what it does.

The biggest problem I see with the power of government is that it is a double-edged sword. The power used to implement some restriction or policy that you happen to approve of today can just as easily be used to implement one that you violently disagree with tomorrow.

[hardeeharhar]

It isn't a strawman, Chris, it's a question:

If the free market is so great, why not let it handle crimes?

Edit: Removed any other point of discussion. Answer this question and maybe I will continue to play your silly game.

[Chris Cuilla]

It isn't a strawman,

It is when you state it this way:

Free market approaches to crime would of course require that murder be legal and the individuals punished in the free market....

And it is especially when you say things like:

Edit: You do realize you suggesting that we take a free market approach, and legalize murder and let the market take care of it...

Chris, it's a question:

Now it is...

If the free market is so great, why not let it handle crimes?

It is not my view that the free-market is a proper solution for things like violence between people. That is a fabrication of your own imagination. I have never said or even implied such a thing. This is your own straw man. In fact, I don't believe a truly free-market can exist under conditions of force, coercion and violence be it individual against individual, group against group or any other combination. I have already stated that it is a proper role of government to police, protect and adjudicate such matters.

You seem to be under the assumption that I (or anyone else) that suggests the idea of minimal government means no government. That is my own position.

More importantly, the purpose here was to elicit other people's view of what they think the proper role of government is (and, of course, to debate those ideas in a civilized manner).

[hardeeharhar]

Unfortunately Chris, I cannot debate you because every time I give you an example you decry that I am misrepresenting you (*sob sob*) in a straw man.

So I am resorting to asking questions:

Are you free to do as you please on your property in your view (as long as it is not directly criminal)?

[Chris Cuilla]

Unfortunately Chris, I cannot debate you because every time I give you an example you decry that I am misrepresenting you (*sob sob*) in a straw man.

You cannot debate me because I am pointing out your fallacies?

Are you free to do as you please on your property in your view (as long as it is not directly criminal)?

Why not? If I am not infringing on the personal or property rights of another, why not?

( the "directly criminal" qualifier" is little squishy here because you can turn around and use that to say "well...look doing X is 'against the law'" and then we get trapped in your circular logic. I have tried to be precise in my statements here. Are the actions you take as a person or with your property infringing upon the personal or property rights of another...namely the right to be free from violence, force, coercion, fraud, deceit? )

I know that you wish to suggest that cutting down trees on my property is damaging to "society at large" because it might be harmful to the estuary nearby (even if that is my own property). But you have failed to show how. In fact I even asked you this directly and you didn't answer.

[hardeeharhar]

Sorry... I will answer your estuary question (I didn't realize you asked me a question, I thought you went of on a property rights tangent). Estuaries being sources of food for local fish can be destroyed by muddy (not even poluted) run-offs from clear cut forests, this can (and does) cause fishing to decline and eventual erosion (no pun intended) of the local economic base. But you don't care since you are selling your logs to people 2000 miles away.

Ah well, market forces or some such...

Next question:

Is it alright for you to dump anything that you have purchased (legally) onto your property?

[Chris Cuilla]

Sorry... I will answer your estuary question (I didn't realize you asked me a question, I thought you went of on a property rights tangent). Estuaries being sources of food for local fish can be destroyed by muddy (not even poluted) run-offs from clear cut forests, this can (and does) cause fishing to decline and eventual erosion (no pun intended) of the local economic base. But you don't care since you are selling your logs to people 2000 miles away.

But this is a property rights matter. Not a tangent. It is a central point to your question.

Is it alright for you to dump anything that you have purchased (legally) onto your property?

Not sure I see why not.

[hardeeharhar]

But this is a property rights matter. Not a tangent. It is a central point to your question.



Not sure I see why not.

Ok. Is it your right to sell your property without reporting to the government (or the buyer) what you did with it?

[Chris Cuilla]

Ok. Is it your right to sell your property without reporting to the government (or the buyer) what you did with it?

Unless you have been deliberately ignoring me...you should see that doing so would likely fall into the category of deception and fraud. So no. NOTE: I don't see how the government is involved in the transaction unless they are the buyer.

[hardeeharhar]

Unless you have been deliberately ignoring me...you should see that doing so would likely fall into the category of deception and fraud. So no. NOTE: I don't see how the government is involved in the transaction unless they are the buyer.

How is that deception and fraud even within the purview of government if it is your property and it is a transaction between yourself and another individual, not the government?

What right does the government have to regulate such things in your system?

Edit: Just to clarify, I am not talking about our system of governance, I am asking about your particular view point on a free market....

It doesn't matter, we won't agree... ultimately i was going to point out that governmental regulation of economic ventures is in the best interests of society in clear cases -- which is not laissez faire, nor particularly free market...

My proposed model of government only regulates when damages are foreseeable, as they are when you want to clear cut a hilltop above an estuary. The government in these cases make less of an impact than the events that would transpire otherwise, perhaps I should have added that caveat...

So more fully, governments should only take action or regulate when the harm done to society by an unimpeded act of an individual is greater than the harm done by governmental action to prevent that act. Eg. Don't do big car chases...

[Chris Cuilla]

How is that deception and fraud even within the purview of government if it is your property and it is a transaction between yourself and another individual, not the government?

The hypothetical fraud is between buyer and seller. Clearly this cannot be allowed. The victim should have the right to appeal to government for recourse.

What right does the government have to regulate such things in your system?

As I have already said (a couple of time I think at this point) this would be a permissible role for the government...adjudicating fraudulent transactions. Clearly the fraud would need to be exposed in some way. But it is reasonable for the gov't to be involved as the adjudicating party.

I'm not talking about the wild west or anarchy here (which is what you seem to think). There are rules (enforceable by government). But they might be a smaller set than you would advocate. The first principles are about a person's freedom to do what they wish with their own person and property so long as they do not infringe upon the same rights as another person. Similarly fraud and deception cannot be permitted. The problem, as I see it, is that many people advocate a much wider spectrum of government intervention in the name of the "good of society" when in reality it is merely a smoke screen for their own moralizing, desire for control and distrust of other people making their own choices about their own lives (or perhaps they simply don't believe people are smart enough to make good choices on their own and therefore need to be protected by the government).

ultimately i was going to point out that governmental regulation of economic ventures is in the best interests of society in clear cases

I understand your view.

[hardeeharhar]

I think we agree more than disagree, Chris...

Particularly in the broad spectrum that exists out there...

I don't want government in my business any more than the next guy, but I have always realized that any agency that large is capable of doing good on a much grander scale than individuals... (the ability to do harm is equally as large, look at the Catholic church for examples of both)....