[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Check. So if we must be protected from government, then why do we have it at all?

You know, I can't think of a reasonable answer to that at all.

I think it was Belgium (maybe Holland) who, due to some kind of mess-up, had no government for about four-five months sometime last year. Nobody noticed, life carried on as usual.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

As a teacher I would not find that an acceptable compromise at all. Also, I think that you might misunderstand the current breadth of "special education" in this nation's schools. I agree that it is a "disaster," but the disaster is that too many kids are being flagged as special ed and it's hobbled education by forcing teachers to accomodate behavior that should instead be extinquished. Fortunately, NCLB makes strict provisions to limit the number of special education exemptions from testing so that school officials are less able to just label kids and let them drift.

I agree that there are other problems with special ed, but, personally, I find it worse that kids who need it can't get it than I do that kids who don't need it are getting it (though I suppose those are related problems). I do agree that a large part of the problem with our education system is that teachers are severely hobbled both by unnecessary and even counterproductive regulation as well as a far too powerful for it's own good union.

That's one of many reasons that I have very mixed feelings about NCLB. Some of its provisions are addressing genuine problems in the system--that we let too many kids just coast for various reasons--but its overarching emphasis on standardized testing as the sole means of assessment is crippling in its reductionism and soul-crushing to those of us who are passionately committed to true education.

I don't really know enough about NCLB to comment, but it's nice to hear that it is at least having some beneficial effects.

The real solution to the problems in education is to depoliticize it, foster a working professionalism for teachers and put these truly professional educators in charge of the process.

I agree, and I happen to think that privatization will help achieve that.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

You know, I can't think of a reasonable answer to that at all.

I think it was Belgium (maybe Holland) who, due to some kind of mess-up, had no government for about four-five months sometime last year. Nobody noticed, life carried on as usual.

Remembered your old password?

I think there are a few good uses for government, especially in more densely populated areas where it simply isn't possible for people to live without interacting with and sharing resources with others. Is it absolutely necessary? Probably not, but it can be a good solution, maybe even a better solution than private ones, in some cases.

Outside of cities where populations are far less dense, however, I think there is much less need for government. When you're in a situation where it's possible to avoid all but voluntary interactions with other people, there's far less justification for government.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Remembered your old password?

I didn't have access to the email this account was assigned to and a lovely mod offered to help with getting this account back on track.

Government? Sometimes useful. I'm a minarchist, not an anarchist, so having some kind of ruling authority to enforce contracts, enforce fair trading and keep a basic infrastructure up and running is acceptable.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I didn't have access to the email this account was assigned to and a lovely mod offered to help with getting this account back on track.

Government? Sometimes useful. I'm a minarchist, not an anarchist, so having some kind of ruling authority to enforce contracts, enforce fair trading and keep a basic infrastructure up and running is acceptable.

Ok, it took me a minute to figure out you're the same person I was conversing with.

So what is included in keeping the basic infrastructure going? I mean, I just want to gauge the limits of what's acceptable for government in your estimation.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Ok, it took me a minute to figure out you're the same person I was conversing with.

So what is included in keeping the basic infrastructure going? I mean, I just want to gauge the limits of what's acceptable for government in your estimation.

Well I can't speak for Doof, but for myself I would say that it's reasonable for government to ensure that the people have access to the bare essentials when they are in a situation where they can't simply go and get them for themselves. By which I mean that if people chose to live in densely populated areas, it's unreasonable/impossible for them to dig wells for water, use septic tanks for sewage, and things like that (I haven't put enough thought into it to expand on 'things like that' for the moment). Now, it's not impossible for these things to be provided privately, however I think that there are a few good arguments for public waterworks and sewage at the very least.

Water, for example, is essential for life and yet not something that you can possibly provide for yourself if you live on the 20th+ floor of an apartment building in Manhattan. A private water company could certainly provide water, however the very nature of high density housing constrains the possibility for competition in the water market which reduces the ability of the market to provide an effective and efficient solution. And, as it's important that absolutely everyone have access to water, this is one instance in which I actually support tax-based government services. My ideal implementation of a public waterworks would be for everyone to be guaranteed X gallons of water per day/week/month/year/whatever at 'no' cost, where X is essentially a minimal number of gallons per person in the household. Any water used in excess of X gallons would be billed at a fair market price, and the cost of the basic service that provides X gallons for 'free' would be approximately ((XY+A+B)/Y)-Z where Y is the population, A is the cost of building/maintaining infrastructure, B is the cost of actually obtaining the necessary water, and Z is the 'profit' obtained by selling people the excess water. It should be noted that the government and government agencies would be subject to the same cost for their buildings and projects which would help discourage government waste as well as help prevent undue strain on the system. I would say that it's probably fair that any building in which people regularly spend time such as office buildings and the like be required by law to have running water hooked into the system, although I haven't thought through the implications and benefits of that vs encouraging people to simply fill a water bottle at home (as their X allotment should provide them enough to do this every day without extra charge, although I do think that public water fountains are a good thing).

Sewage is a similar issue in that in a high density situation it's extremely important that everyone have it in order to reduce the risk of disease in the entire population and in that more individualistic solutions such as septic tanks simply won't work.

A police force and fire brigade are probably also good examples of things that it makes sense for the government to provide, as are city streets, as these are things that operate most efficiently when they aren't subject to jurisdictional issues (as used to be the case when people had to hire private fire protection services). I would probably keep the current system of city, county, and state policing though I would also want to seriously restructure their financial model because I think it's absurd and counter-productive that the police profit from crime. For example the revenue from traffic and parking tickets absolutely should not go into the police budget, or probably really any government program so as not to encourage the ever increasing severity and number of the laws that restrict behavior to no realy positive effect (such as shorter yellow lights that increase revenue from red light cameras but also make intersections less safe). It's probably fair to say that traffic issues should not be the domain of the police unless and until those traffic issues actually result in someone being hurt and killed.

[Doofy]

I'll go with what Non says.

Basic living requirements (utilities) and basic infrastructure.

[nonhuman]

I should probably also mention that my definition of what constitutes 'government' is most likely a little looser than that most people are working with. The way I see it, a government is simply a form of corporation. A bunch of people who have shared interest in a particular asset (in this case an area of land on which they live and/or work) and want to make investments in that asset for the purpose of increasing it's value for an organization that they give responsibility for managing that asset for the good of the investors (everyone who lives there). Extending that a little further, a government therefore has a lot of latitude in how it does things. If the investors so desire they can set it up as a commune, or some sort of anarcho-capitalist cooperative. As they are the ones making the investment, they have the right to manage that investment as they see fit so long as people are always free to leave if they so desire.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I'll go with what Non says.

Basic living requirements (utilities) and basic infrastructure.

Ok, welcome to the party nonhuman...here's hoping that you two don't start disagreeing with one another or it will complicate this process.

So, let's explore this. Why narrow basic living requirements to utilities? Why not food? Medicine?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

So, let's explore this. Why narrow basic living requirements to utilities? Why not food? Medicine?

Are you going to make my taxes pay for some dude to eat meat?
Are you going to make my taxes pay for some AIDS cocktail for some dude who went to a bug party?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Are you going to make my taxes pay for some AIDS cocktail for some dude who went to a bug party?

Well, I've had enough of Doofy's verbal diarrhea. Time for the ignore list...

[Doofy]

So, we can tell from the above post that McKenna expects me to pay for medicine for people who intentionally acquire their condition.

Interesting.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Ok, welcome to the party nonhuman...here's hoping that you two don't start disagreeing with one another or it will complicate this process.

So, let's explore this. Why narrow basic living requirements to utilities? Why not food? Medicine?

Well, there's the pragmatic issue whereby if everyone is simply provided with absolutely everything they need there's zero motivation for them to actually contribute to the economy and it collapses to the point were it can't actually support those programs anymore leaving everyone out on their asses anyway.

Of course you're looking for a philosophical answer.

In that case I'd say because while everyone needs and drinks the same water and 'needs' running water in their homes, which makes it a poor candidate for a market solution to provide (for the above stated reasons of an inherently low-competition field, &c.), food is a different matter as everyone needs and wants different things. Additionally, food is not a natural resource (unless you're on a raw diet...); it requires work and resources to produce, and there is a near infinite variety out there to choose from. Sure we could have a government program that provided everyone with food, but the result of that would be that everyone was always eating the same thing. No body really wants that, and while governments have certainly never been afraid to do things even though no one wanted them to, there's really no benefit to anyone by doing so. There is and has always been a good business model for selling food. It's good for the economy, it's good for the producers, and it's good for the consumers to have a wide array of choices when it comes to food, and government simply isn't equipped to provide that.

As for medicine, that's clearly a contentious issue. However I would argue that it's not an essential thing for everyone to have. I recently got married and so am now on my wife's work provided healthcare (and that's a rant in and of itself), but prior to that I spent about two years with no health insurance. By choice, and in violation of the law (I live in Massachusetts where is mandated that you purchase health insurance). In those two years I didn't once get sick besides the occasional cold, nor did I get hit by any cars, or stabbed or shot on the street. I required and took no medicine, and I wasted no one's time on pointless medical procedures. I understand the arguments in favor of universal healthcare, and I do think that it would probably be a good thing for everyone to have health insurance. I just don't think that the best and most effective way to ensure that people get the care that they need is to give up control of healthcare to the government. I really do think that a private healthcare system can do a better job than a public one. This is not to say that I think our system is good as it is, it's not. The US' health care system needs a massive overhaul, and there's a ton of room for improvement in many areas. I just don't think the direction of that overhaul should be nationalization, I honestly think we need less regulation in medicine, not more.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Well, there's the pragmatic issue whereby if everyone is simply provided with absolutely everything they need there's zero motivation for them to actually contribute to the economy and it collapses to the point were it can't actually support those programs anymore leaving everyone out on their asses anyway.

Of course you're looking for a philosophical answer.

No. I'm not looking for any kind of answer. So since you gave me two answers, I guess I'll give you back two questions:

If you, personally, had all your needs--food, medicine, basic shelter, etc.--provided, would you stop contributing to the economy? Would you want for nothing else?

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Well, there's the pragmatic issue whereby if everyone is simply provided with absolutely everything they need there's zero motivation for them to actually contribute to the economy and it collapses to the point were it can't actually support those programs anymore leaving everyone out on their asses anyway.

Of course you're looking for a philosophical answer.

In that case I'd say because while everyone needs and drinks the same water and 'needs' running water in their homes, which makes it a poor candidate for a market solution to provide (for the above stated reasons of an inherently low-competition field, &c.), food is a different matter as everyone needs and wants different things. Additionally, food is not a natural resource (unless you're on a raw diet...); it requires work and resources to produce, and there is a near infinite variety out there to choose from. Sure we could have a government program that provided everyone with food, but the result of that would be that everyone was always eating the same thing. No body really wants that, and while governments have certainly never been afraid to do things even though no one wanted them to, there's really no benefit to anyone by doing so. There is and has always been a good business model for selling food. It's good for the economy, it's good for the producers, and it's good for the consumers to have a wide array of choices when it comes to food, and government simply isn't equipped to provide that.

As for medicine, that's clearly a contentious issue. However I would argue that it's not an essential thing for everyone to have. I recently got married and so am now on my wife's work provided healthcare (and that's a rant in and of itself), but prior to that I spent about two years with no health insurance. By choice, and in violation of the law (I live in Massachusetts where is mandated that you purchase health insurance). In those two years I didn't once get sick besides the occasional cold, nor did I get hit by any cars, or stabbed or shot on the street. I required and took no medicine, and I wasted no one's time on pointless medical procedures. I understand the arguments in favor of universal healthcare, and I do think that it would probably be a good thing for everyone to have health insurance. I just don't think that the best and most effective way to ensure that people get the care that they need is to give up control of healthcare to the government. I really do think that a private healthcare system can do a better job than a public one. This is not to say that I think our system is good as it is, it's not. The US' health care system needs a massive overhaul, and there's a ton of room for improvement in many areas. I just don't think the direction of that overhaul should be nationalization, I honestly think we need less regulation in medicine, not more.

Ah, nonhuman, you're going too fast for me. Saying too much at once. I can only deal with one thing at a time. You said that it takes work to produce food. Does it take work or energy to provide people with water?

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Are you going to make my taxes pay for some dude to eat meat?
Are you going to make my taxes pay for some AIDS cocktail for some dude who went to a bug party?

Ah, but we haven't even established whether or not we need taxes. Let's pace ourselves; we're still trying to figure out the limits of what government should and should not do. Is there a difference between food as a necessity and water as a necessity that dictates one should be under the umbrella of government and the other should not?

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

No. I'm not looking for any kind of answer. So since you gave me two answers, I guess I'll give you back two questions:

If you, personally, had all your needs--food, medicine, basic shelter, etc.--provided, would you stop contributing to the economy? Would you want for nothing else?

It's hard to say for sure, seeing as I haven't really been in such a situation since I moved away from home, but knowing myself and having lived a comfortable and relatively well-off life up through college I know that I have a very large streak of 'do the absolute minimum needed to get by'. I try not to let it dominate my life (I currently run my own company and am working very hard at growing it as well as attempting to start another), but I know that I have that in me and that, given the opportunity, I would be extremely tempted to indulge it. Whether I would actually do so or not, I can't really say at this point (though my wife would really get on my case about it if I did ). I can say, however, that I, personally, have rather modest wants. I don't feel the need for a big fancy house, or lots of expensive possessions. In a lot of ways I'd almost rather not have those things. My ideal life would be rather slow-paced and relaxed, whether I was contributing anything to society or not.

But I'm just one person, and my behavior can't really be taken as typical. Some people would definitely continue to work hard because they simply enjoy working. Some people would work hard because they want to be better than everyone else and have the power and the resources to prove it. Some people would sit back, relax, and enjoy the free ride. It's hard to say exactly what would happen, but I think it's safe to say that a larger percentage of the population than does currently, would take the latter course. Historically we've seen this happen before; socialist and communist societies tend to stagnate economically and have all sorts of other issues.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Ah, nonhuman, you're going too fast for me. Saying too much at once. I can only deal with one thing at a time. You said that it takes work to produce food. Does it take work or energy to provide people with water?

It takes work and energy to provide people with anything. But water falls from the sky and gathers into lakes, rivers, and aquifers. If you're not living in a densely populated area it's not that difficult and requires no specialized skills or anything for people to get water; they just go stick their heads in the lake. Modern waterworks are merely providing artificial 'lakes' and 'rivers' that are more convenient for people to use.

Food is somewhat different. Sure it grows on trees, and a hunter gatherer lifestyle is actually quite successful (and there have been studies showing that the diet of a hunter gatherer is actually healthier for humans). But agriculture is what makes modern society possible. Without it, everyone would have to dedicate most of their time to getting food for themselves and their families. Providing people with food is a much different proposition than providing people with water. You don't just build aquaducts, pipes, and pumps that bring the water to the people. You have to create farmland, maintain it, cultivate the plants, process them in some manner, prepare the food, make sure it doesn't go bad between the farm and the dinner plate. Also different places and different times of the year are suitable to different crops. And that's not even getting into meat and fish.

How do you propose that the government provide everyone with food? You can't just pipe natural food reserves into people's homes. Are we going to build giant centralized cafeterias where everyone goes to get their meals? Or are we just going to build government supermarkets where people go to get their free food? How are we going to ensure that the special dietary needs of some people are going to be met? Is all government food going to be kosher, halal, contain no peanuts, &c.? Or maybe we just provide a very basic gruel of some sort that is sufficient to keep people alive, and allow the market to provide the 'luxury' foods like carrots?

Water and food are different, and it makes no sense to try and approach them with the same methods. Also keep in mind that the government massively subsidizes food currently. Our farm subsidies and particularly corn subsidies are what keep food prices so low in the US, but also what ensures that the cheapest food is probably the worse for you. The corn subsidies, in particular, are in large part responsible for many of the common health problems we're facing today. They're also responsible for the fact that most of our farmers are growing corn and making so little money that they can't afford to switch to any other crops while at the same time ensuring that they can barely afford to stay afloat at all.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Ah, but we haven't even established whether or not we need taxes. Let's pace ourselves; we're still trying to figure out the limits of what government should and should not do. Is there a difference between food as a necessity and water as a necessity that dictates one should be under the umbrella of government and the other should not?

If government is going to do anything, it needs to have money to pay for those things. Government also needs money to pay government employees of which some minimal number is necessary no matter how small the government. That money is either going to come from taxes, tariffs, or fees. There are arguments against all three sources of funding, but at least one is necessary. As much as I dislike it, really are probably the best way to fund the government. Though I only find certain kinds of taxes palatable (I'm absolutely opposed to property taxes, and 'sin' taxes. Sales tax is ok as the government is helping to support the situation which makes commerce easy and accessible so it makes sense that the government should get some money out of that. Income tax I'm less a fan of, but again is relatively ok for similar reasons to sales tax.), and would rather have as little and as few as possible, I've basically resigned myself to the idea that some taxes are and will remain pretty much necessary in a modern society and economy.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

It takes work and energy to provide people with anything. But water falls from the sky and gathers into lakes, rivers, and aquifers. If you're not living in a densely populated area it's not that difficult and requires no specialized skills or anything for people to get water; they just go stick their heads in the lake. Modern waterworks are merely providing artificial 'lakes' and 'rivers' that are more convenient for people to use.

Food is somewhat different. Sure it grows on trees, and a hunter gatherer lifestyle is actually quite successful (and there have been studies showing that the diet of a hunter gatherer is actually healthier for humans). But agriculture is what makes modern society possible. Without it, everyone would have to dedicate most of their time to getting food for themselves and their families. Providing people with food is a much different proposition than providing people with water. You don't just build aquaducts, pipes, and pumps that bring the water to the people. You have to create farmland, maintain it, cultivate the plants, process them in some manner, prepare the food, make sure it doesn't go bad between the farm and the dinner plate. Also different places and different times of the year are suitable to different crops. And that's not even getting into meat and fish.

How do you propose that the government provide everyone with food? You can't just pipe natural food reserves into people's homes. Are we going to build giant centralized cafeterias where everyone goes to get their meals? Or are we just going to build government supermarkets where people go to get their free food? How are we going to ensure that the special dietary needs of some people are going to be met? Is all government food going to be kosher, halal, contain no peanuts, &c.? Or maybe we just provide a very basic gruel of some sort that is sufficient to keep people alive, and allow the market to provide the 'luxury' foods like carrots?

Water and food are different, and it makes no sense to try and approach them with the same methods. Also keep in mind that the government massively subsidizes food currently. Our farm subsidies and particularly corn subsidies are what keep food prices so low in the US, but also what ensures that the cheapest food is probably the worse for you. The corn subsidies, in particular, are in large part responsible for many of the common health problems we're facing today. They're also responsible for the fact that most of our farmers are growing corn and making so little money that they can't afford to switch to any other crops while at the same time ensuring that they can barely afford to stay afloat at all.

I think you're mistaking me. I'm not proposing anything.

It seems like in this (and your other response) we have some convergence. Can we say that government can provide necessary resources when it is practical? Would this be a fair paraphrase?

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

It's hard to say for sure, seeing as I haven't really been in such a situation since I moved away from home, but knowing myself and having lived a comfortable and relatively well-off life up through college I know that I have a very large streak of 'do the absolute minimum needed to get by'. I try not to let it dominate my life (I currently run my own company and am working very hard at growing it as well as attempting to start another), but I know that I have that in me and that, given the opportunity, I would be extremely tempted to indulge it. Whether I would actually do so or not, I can't really say at this point (though my wife would really get on my case about it if I did ). I can say, however, that I, personally, have rather modest wants. I don't feel the need for a big fancy house, or lots of expensive possessions. In a lot of ways I'd almost rather not have those things. My ideal life would be rather slow-paced and relaxed, whether I was contributing anything to society or not.

But I'm just one person, and my behavior can't really be taken as typical. Some people would definitely continue to work hard because they simply enjoy working. Some people would work hard because they want to be better than everyone else and have the power and the resources to prove it. Some people would sit back, relax, and enjoy the free ride. It's hard to say exactly what would happen, but I think it's safe to say that a larger percentage of the population than does currently, would take the latter course. Historically we've seen this happen before; socialist and communist societies tend to stagnate economically and have all sorts of other issues.

What other issues? This might be important to understand the situation.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

What other issues? This might be important to understand the situation.

Rampant corruption. A slave-owner like mentality among the ruling class. Human rights violations up the wazoo. Social unrest. Generally even vasted income disparities than those seen among capitalist countries.

Shall I go on?

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Rampant corruption. A slave-owner like mentality among the ruling class. Human rights violations up the wazoo. Social unrest. Generally even vasted income disparities than those seen among capitalist countries.

Shall I go on?

Ok, now, are these negative consequences factors that we should consider in crafting our government? If so, how much weight do we give the possibility of such problems in designing government?

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Ok, now, are these negative consequences factors that we should consider in crafting our government? If so, how much weight do we give the possibility of such problems in designing government?

We should definitely consider these factors, and I think these factors were strongly considered when crafting the US government.

The less power a government has, the less prone it is to these problems, and the less damage it can do if and when they arise.