Quote:
Originally Posted by hoyacoug
If this were true, we should advocate NO government as opposed to minimal government. I imagine you don't actually believe what you are saying here. Of course it can do more than harm (indeed, you cite several areas where the government has done lots of good).
As for your statement that there are no major issues to work on today, I am simply astounded. You begin by saying there is nothing like WWII facing us. We are on the precipice of a WWIII right now, I think. The direction our leaders take us may or may not thrust us over that precipice. International affairs today are far more complicated than they were during WWII. We face HUGE issues in that realm.
The global AIDS epidemic; racial issues that STILL exist (despite your inference that the civil rights movement ended that issue); education; trade deficits; exporting of labor to foreign countries; poverty within the US and globally; finding the appropriate balance between security and freedom; stem cell research... the list goes on and on.
We are faced with countless issues of enormous proportions. We need people with imagination to solve those issues. We DON'T need people who imagine there are no major ssues that need to be solved.
|
If you study history and great civilizations, what is the role of society first and foremost?
The role of society is capital production so that people can eat. All great empires required expansions and integration of new peoples. At some point the ability to integrate the new peoples became overwhelming or the ability to hang on to an empire became impossible.
Government should be viewed as an enabling constraint, meaning it should allow and encourage private enterprise to solve, most if not all problems. Government merely exchanges harm, in most instances.
We are not on the precipice of of WWIII.
AIDS epidemic is not subject to governmental solutions. This is based on the naturalist tendencies that reason is all men need. More later.