10-01-2006, 07:44 PM | #21 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
Sure, government can stumble over itself with its own bureaucracies and is frequently slow (though I would argue that a slow government is almost always better than a rapid one). In short, absolutely government can solve problems, at least to the extent a "solution" is possible. In fact, I would argue that everyone believes this is true (unless you are an anarchist). Otherwise, there would be no purpose in having a government. We could do everything without it. Mostly, people only argue over what problems that government should ATTEMPT to solve, not whether the government can solve problems in general. |
|
10-01-2006, 08:25 PM | #22 | |
Senior Member
|
Quote:
You're a fraud.
__________________
Masquerading as Cougarguards very own genius dumbass since 05'. |
|
10-01-2006, 10:19 PM | #23 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
|
10-01-2006, 10:21 PM | #24 | |
Board Pinhead
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In the basement of my house, Murray, Utah.
Posts: 15,941
|
Quote:
A fair enough answer, I suppose. Personally, I think government causes more problems than it solves, because it involves far too much red tape to do anything. (Being an attorney, I'm sure that you realize that dealing with court clerks is proof that beureaucrats do not believe in customer service.) I disagree about a slow moving government usually being better. When I want a product or service, I go to whomever will provide it for me in the quickest and least expensive manner. A good example of the government not being the answer would be the economy. This country's economy was built on capitalism. When the government gets involved, the economy suffers. I believe the government should provide protection (fire, police and national defense) only. Anything else is a waste of time and money.
__________________
"The beauty of baseball is not having to explain it." - Chuck Shriver "This is now the joke that stupid people laugh at." - Christopher Hitchens on IQ jokes about GWB. |
|
10-02-2006, 01:00 AM | #25 |
Senior Member
|
Thank you for proving my point.
__________________
Masquerading as Cougarguards very own genius dumbass since 05'. Last edited by RockyBalboa; 10-02-2006 at 01:13 AM. |
10-02-2006, 01:39 AM | #26 | |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
|
10-02-2006, 01:47 AM | #27 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
I would imagine you would agree that the government should be involved in more than just protection, though, if you thought about it. Should they be involved in air traffic control? It isn't protection, though it may be an appendage of it. What about regulating the frequencies of broadcasts? Do you think private parties could ever actually come up with a system that would ensure you wouldn't have overlap on broadcast frequencies? How could they ever stop some third party from infringing on their paid-for airwaves? Would you be annoyed to be watching ESPN only to have a local broadcaster take over the frequency? What about freeway systems? Traffic control (an appendage of protection, but not nearly as direct as police and fire or military as you give in your example). What about regulation of the markets? Would you actually move to a totally free market? Working in securities litigation now, I can only imagine what people would try to get away with if there were actually no restrictions on what they could or could not do. What about recording property? Public universities? National parks? Grants to students? What about regulating piracy? Copyrights in general? People frequently advocate a truly free economy. Our economy couldn't function in a truly free sense. The government protects certain economic rights, and it regulates others. You can argue to what extent they should be involved in regulation, but I doubt if you truly thought about it you would conclude they should be involved in ZERO economic regulation. Think about bankruptcy- it is nothing more than government welfare. And yet, it encourages economic growth by allowing people to take risks they otherwise wouldn't take. Would you start a business if you knew you would go to debtor's prison for failing (knowing about 90% of start-up businesses DO fail)? Could private parties even begin to address the slavery issue (assuming we had adopted your model going back in time)? How? Wouldn't we have slavery today in the south? What about racial segregation? Should discrimination simply be a matter of freedom of contract? |
|
10-02-2006, 01:49 AM | #28 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
Once formed, however, the role of government, I think, is most aptly described in the preamble to the Constitution. |
|
10-02-2006, 01:52 AM | #29 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
|
10-02-2006, 01:56 AM | #30 | |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
Quote:
Society must produce capital, not government. Government, simply stated, is an enabling constraint. We will argue which enabling constraints are essential, but those affecting property are most important. China demonstrates that societies can prosper in spite of personal freedoms, so long as economic freedoms prosper. Liberties are wonderful, especially in light of having them, but the first foundation is economic. Societies, not government, build them. Government should protect its development and property rights. We all fall into capital production, enabling constraint, or parasite. Government by its very nature is parasitic, unless it limits its constraints to essential constraints. Governments, in general produce nothing.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
|
Bookmarks |
|
|