Why are Republicans not in open rebellion?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

A few honest questions: Do you believe that government is the answer to solving problems? Why or why not?

Government is the representative body of the people. It has the authority and power to solve certain issues because we have given it to them. Government has the ability to solve problems that other entities could not even begin to attempt to solve, due to a lack of authority, power, money and a host of other issues.

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.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

Solution 1:

Don't ever vote Republican. Have you seen what it gets you?

:P

Give me the issue you are wanting me to solve and I am happy to see what I can do. A blanket statement asking me to solve all problems may be expecting a bit too much.

(Would it be asking too much for you to actually come up with an idea too on whatever topic you suggest? Other than just blindly following your fearless Republican leaders?)

How does it feel to express your "ideas" and "answer questions" like the politicians you loathe?

You're a fraud.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

How does it feel to express your "ideas" and "answer questions" like the politicians you loathe?

You're a fraud.

Not very helpful. I asked you an easy question, you respond with name calling. That DOES sound familiar.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

Government is the representative body of the people. It has the authority and power to solve certain issues because we have given it to them. Government has the ability to solve problems that other entities could not even begin to attempt to solve, due to a lack of authority, power, money and a host of other issues.

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.

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.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

Not very helpful. I asked you an easy question, you respond with name calling. That DOES sound familiar.

Thank you for proving my point.

[Archaea]

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.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

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.

I think your post is an example of what I mean. We both think government can do some good things. To you, they are good at protection (libertarian?). To me, they are good at more (democrat). To others, they are good at everything (true socialists). To some, they are good at nothing (anarchists).

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?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

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.

Actually, I would argue that government primarily began to protect property, not produce capital. Capital was already being produced long before government began. It was when people wanted to preserve their capital and property that they began the government compacts.

Once formed, however, the role of government, I think, is most aptly described in the preamble to the Constitution.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

Thank you for proving my point.

Oh how I enjoy these grown-up exchanges. So meaningful. So well-thought out. So wrought with guidance and instruction.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

Actually, I would argue that government primarily began to protect property, not produce capital. Capital was already being produced long before government began. It was when people wanted to preserve their capital and property that they began the government compacts.

Once formed, however, the role of government, I think, is most aptly described in the preamble to the Constitution.

You didn't read my post.

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.