Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
strong military used only to defend borders and shipping;
swift punishment of lawbreakers;
those who steal millions punished more severely than those who steal TVs;
consumption tax or modest income taxes are used to fund the government,
military and law enforcement; respects individual privacy;
respects individual rights to makes lifestyle choices for themselves; preserves religious freedom; etc.
In other words, you'd have to have a very black and white, child-like view of the world if you believed any of the above high school class president slogans.
education is supported at the community or family level
By the way, education is supported and controlled at the community level right now.
strong military used only to defend borders and shipping;
swift punishment of lawbreakers;
those who steal millions punished more severely than those who steal TVs;
consumption tax or modest income taxes are used to fund the government,
military and law enforcement; respects individual privacy;
respects individual rights to makes lifestyle choices for themselves; preserves religious freedom; etc.
In other words, you'd have to have a very black and white, child-like view of the world if you believed any of the above high school class president slogans.
education is supported at the community or family level
By the way, education is supported and controlled at the community level right now.
Other than to insult me, what exactly is your point here? Do you sincerely believe that government is only effective when it's "big" or are you just trolling? Government is not a binary function. It's not on or off. Big or non-existent/ineffective.
As for education, as long as things like the No child Left Behind Act exist, no, it's not entirely handled at the community level.
Other than to insult me, what exactly is your point here? Do you sincerely believe that government is only effective when it's "big" or are you just trolling? Government is not a binary function. It's not on or off. Big or non-existent/inefective.
As for education, as long as things like the No child Left Behind Act exist, no, it's not entirely handled at the community level.
I to think that they used to say that imitation was the sincerest form of flattery.
Is government only effective when it is "Big?" Answering such a question would require something more than a grade school definition of large government. As for the binary nature of the question. The thread was posted in response to the 26% of respondents here on CD to a very binary question regarding the role of government.
So, far no one, yourself included has even begun to approach a serious discussion regarding the breath or complexity of the Federal government.
I to think that they used to say that imitation was the sincerest form of flattery.
Is government only effective when it is "Big?" Answering such a question would require something more than a grade school definition of large government. As for the binary nature of the question. The thread was posted in response to the 26% of respondents here on CD to a very binary question regarding the role of government.
So, far no one, yourself included has even begun to approach a serious discussion regarding the breath or complexity of the Federal government.
Rationally--that is to say, IMHO--to protect individual rights and to provide social programs are the only two reasons a government should even exist. The former might mean security, while the latter might mean collective safety-nets or insurance. I argued in a previous thread that there will always be an exchange of individual rights for social programs and that where we should draw the line is subjective. A government that only provides security can't remain the same size and provide the same level of security if it seeks to begin providing social programs. There's no way to discuss the size of government without acknowledging that we have different values.
I argued in a previous thread that there will always be an exchange of individual rights for social programs and that where we should draw the line is subjective. A government that only provides security can't remain the same size and provide the same level of security if it seeks to begin providing social programs. There's no way to discuss the size of government without acknowledging that we have different values.
I would be interested in reading that argument because I would like to fully understand what you mean by individual rights vs individual responsibility to a greater society and that greater societies responsibility to its members. As for security, what does that entail, security from foreign adversaries, internal security, or security of social well being? If it is the former, you are right, you can only have a mix of so many guns and so much butter. If it is the latter then I'm not getting your meaning.
even less government than libertarians think is acceptable.
Libertarianism is a large ideological tent covering as much as a quarter of the Nolan Chart. There's a lot of gray area, but I'd say the barrier to calling yourself a libertarian is government spending below 10% of GDP (to which many republicans would qualify) AND no enforcement of victimless crimes (to which many democrats / greens would qualify). And anarcho-capitalists like me qualify as libertarian as well. In fact I'm less radical than most anarcho-capitalists in that I realize that it's a long term vision that even under the best of circumstances would take many decades to implement, and most many people would still choose to live under fairly strict but competitive governments, like the Singapore example.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ever Adrift
Equating the pirates to a government is absurd; these are essentially disorganized gangsters run amuck; plus from what we know the only things they are targeting are foreign ships, not the other people living in Somalia. [...]
That's just silly. You have to wear a suit and tie to be government? Hah...
Those pirates do steal, err, I mean "raise taxes" from whatever source is most profitable. They have logistical organization proportional to their size. All governments in the world started out that way. If they were any bigger, they'd start to resemble other African governments. If they were bigger still, they'd start to resemble our own. See, the government builds roads and schools not because they love you, but because that's how they get more money from you. It's as simple as that.
The real lesson from Somalia is that having a disfunctional government is better than a functional one, because they're doing much better than many other African nations at the same level of development. As even the CIA factbook admits:
Quote:
Despite the seeming anarchy, Somalia's service sector has managed to survive and grow. Telecommunication firms provide wireless services in most major cities and offer the lowest international call rates on the continent. In the absence of a formal banking sector, money exchange services have sprouted throughout the country, handling between $500 million and $1 billion in remittances annually. Mogadishu's main market offers a variety of goods from food to the newest electronic gadgets. Hotels continue to operate, and militias provide security.
You'll find plenty of positive things said about Somalia compared to other countries start started out from the same economic level, but, once again - that's not anarcho-capitalism, just government too incompetent to screw some things up.
I've experienced the same thing first hand when living in Moscow around 1991, after the Soviet government collapsed but before the new Russian one got its act together. I was just 9 years old, but that's the safest and freest I ever felt in my life. Compared to that, New Jersey was nothing but a prison...
Quote:
Originally Posted by melinuxfool
I bet an audit by the Somalian IRS is less painful than an audit by the IRS in the USA
Don't know about that, but the Somalian IRS is much easier to fight off...
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
Philadelphia tried it until 1856 with both quasi privatized "police" and fire departments. Needless to say, it didn't work.
Um, that's kind of like saying Luxembourg "didn't work" because the Nazi Germany invaded it by force, or a bully telling you your face didn't work while he's punching it. The government didn't gain its monopoly on police and fire protection by providing better quality and/or value, it did so by force. Private companies can't make you pay for their services through taxes whether you want them or not!
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
Mighty funny no one was complaining when the Republicans built that Big Government! You know that Big Government that has Kept Us Safe™ since 9/11.
Um, libertarians were complaining. We were complaining even as we watched the towers come down - this is what we get for trusting the government to "keep us safe".
Quote:
Originally Posted by lobodog
Law enforcement is designed, to protect our Constitutional Rights and Constitutional Government.
Behold, the mighty constitution, forged by Allah in heaven before the rest of the creation, guarded by a fierce army of angels and genies and stuff... Oh wait, never mind, it's just "a god damn piece of paper"...
Quote:
Originally Posted by TnHilltopper
The trend in America is to privatize everything
You're confused over "privatization" vs "free market", there's a huge difference. Just because the government outsources some things to a private company doesn't mean it's no longer government, that's a mere organizational technicality. If it in any way violates the non-aggression principle, then it's government.
(On a personal note... I threw away a very promising career over this - I refuse to work for thugs, even if they call themselves government and even if it's through several intermediaries...)
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
Rome had the most powerful military of it's day, but over time the allegiance of those soldiers changed from being to the State to being to the ones who paid their wages. It was no accident that Rome soon thereafter changed from a Republic ruled by elected Senators to one ruled by an Emperor.
Once again, you are applying some sort of a mystical divine goodness to the "state" or "senate", the holy deities in your irrational religion. What gives them the special "mandate of heaven" to rule by force?
Last edited by Alex Libman; 01-05-2009 at 10:00 PM..
Just for the record when I say big government I refer to the Federal government not local governments.
Someone in California elects someone from Florida and they will reside in DC but is somehow suppose to know what works best in Charlotte, NC. I'm all for the local people voting their own states government to be as big as needed to suit it's people as they can be more intelligent with it's choices on a more local level.
The Federal government should be there for the things the local governments can't like national security. Unfortunately IMO it's to intermingled and when you mix that with the current setup in terms of career long politicians/lobbyist and it get's nasty. It should be a employer/employee relationship. Stop the spending balance the budget and make any cuts possible.....that's the only way to move forward if that somehow translates into anarchy in your minds whatever...
As for security, what does that entail, security from foreign adversaries, internal security, or security of social well being? If it is the former, you are right, you can only have a mix of so many guns and so much butter.
By security I meant the former: anything that prevents or at least seeks to punish or discourage aggression. By safety-nets and insurance I meant things like state managed healthcare, social security, public libraries or any other publicly funded social endeavor not directly related to security as defined in this context.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
I would be interested in reading that argument because I would like to fully understand what you mean by individual rights vs individual responsibility to a greater society and that greater societies responsibility to its members.
I like the way you phrased your comment. Another way to phrase it might be: society's responsibility to the individual vs. the individual's responsibility to society. Below is the link to the thread along with a couple of excerpts:
Quote:
Originally Posted by GhostInTheShell
...Your position seems to be that if it’s in the best interest of the majority, we should do it. My position is that you have to draw a line somewhere.
The logical conclusion of collectivism is the complete dismissal of the notion of individual rights.
Regarding my comment above, picture an x=y graph plotting fewer individual rights (civil liberties) vs. [level of] collectivism. The origin is a position of many rights, but no social programs. At infinity you have complete collectivism at the expense of all individual rights. The graph doesn’t make a claim to the effectiveness of the programs or the importance of the rights (nor did my statement); it simply illustrates their relationship with one another. Most people agree that we should structure our society/government in such a way that we retain certain rights as individuals while compromising a few of them for the sake of the greater good (property rights/imminent domain, gun rights/arming criminals, privacy/spying on suspected terrorists, retain the products of our labor/paying taxes for the common defense, etc.). However, people will always disagree with one another on where we should draw the line. You, for example, appear to lean much further to the upper right corner of the graph, while I lean closer to the origin (not at the origin, but closer to it relative to you). Since people will always disagree with one another, there will always be a struggle--a tug of war--along the graph. So, going back to what I said two posts ago, realistically, I believe our society/government isn’t likely to move much closer to the origin. In fact, we’ll probably continue to move further away from the origin.
...
I assumed an x=y graph for the sake of clarity. It’s not critical to my claim. The notion of an optimal point along the graph is subjective since the good things of balls and lizards are open to opinion. There may be an exchange of a number of rights for the smallest social program or there may be an exchange of only the most trivial of rights for sweeping programs. Triviality, the effectiveness of the programs, or even the notion of smallest and sweeping are subjective in this context. The structure of the graph(s) between the endpoints isn't relevant to my claim, which was simply that there is an exchange and that because we have different values there will always be a struggle. The only definite points are the endpoints.
When I said logical conclusion I was referring to one of the endpoints and implying that if even one person in a position of power supports an extreme level of collectivism, then without opposition we'd eventually end up there or very close to it. In a tug of war, where do you think the midpoint of the rope will end up if one sides gives up? Speaking practically, in our society we'll continue to move away from the origin if some subset of people doesn’t steady itself close to the origin. I use the history of our nation to support my claim.
As for me: I'm ok with paying taxes for a reasonably strong military; I enjoy public libraries; I think education should be privatized and available to all children; I don't enjoy meddling in other countries' affairs; and I don't like the fact that a near majority of voters think it's ok to ban rifles because of what goes on in the bad areas of a few cities. What might comfort--not necessarily increase the security of, but comfort--individuals in the projects of Chicago might not comfort individuals in rural Wyoming. What the majority of folks in Massachusetts consider to be a reasonable level of security and "social responsibility" (i.e. the size of government) might clash with what the majority of folks in Idaho think is reasonable. It seems to me then that people would be happier as a whole if more power was handed back to the states from the federal government.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
