Recommend
4 
 Thumb up
 Hide
50 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: Government fails rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Steve K
United States
flag msg tools
A Brookings scholar finds government doesn't work well.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/not-imagination-government-rea...

Who knew the Brookings Institute was a Koch brothers front? : (
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Seifert
United States
Little Canada
Minnesota
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Well, I don't think we needed a study to know that but let's see what we got.

Quote:
Government failure was not always so predictably unpredictable. Name a significant domestic or international problem that the nation confronted after World War II, and the federal government almost certainly did something about it, and often with great success.
The after WW2 qualifier was necessary, because WW2 was a big enough blunder.

Quote:
And although it did not win Lyndon Johnson’s war on poverty, it did halve the effects of misfortune.
What?

Quote:
the federal government creates miracles every day, often in spite of ever-tighter budgets
Maybe the allotment to each government program is getting smaller (I don't know), but the budget itself is certainly not getting tighter.

Quote:
1. Most of the failures involved errors of omission, not commission.
Most of the failures that the author picked (apparently by his own opinion on what constitutes failure) from a news aggregate. It is only natural that headline news covers disasters and cases where the government fails to act (government acting detrimentally to the people is, unfortunately, too common to be news).

Quote:
And it did not design the Byzantine instruments that triggered the banking collapse in 2008, but had little capacity to stop the risk.
The only thing Byzantine is federal bank regulation. And if the Fed had no power to stop a financial collapse, it is only because they -- the controllers of the money supply -- created those conditions in the first place.

Quote:
It could be that bureaucracies are inherently vulnerable to failure regardless of funding, hierarchy, dependencies, and public angst toward big organizations of any kind.
He brings this up, and then throws it away without any consideration.

Quote:
Government can fail for many reasons, including some that are well beyond its control. Poorly designed policies come from Congress and the president, for example, and may be impossible to implement regardless of bureaucratic commitment. Moreover, government cannot always do more with less, compensate for poor leadership, and manage the confusion created by duplication and overlap on Capitol Hill.
"Beyond it's control" is a code word for "short-sighted central planning" and "bureaucratic inefficiency and corruption" apparently.

Quote:
the policy might have been ... delegated to a vulnerable or historically unreliable organization.
Like itself.

Quote:
After all, most Americans want more of almost everything government delivers, and are highly favorable toward most federal agencies and government employees
I really don't understand how he can make bald-faced lies like that, when his own source disagrees. You'd be pressed to find an opinion poll where even a slim majority approves of a government action, let alone "most Americans."

Quote:
For their part, Democrats did their best to ignore the slow decimation of government capacity
The what-down? Federal power has only grown.

Quote:
The first step toward reducing government failure is to make sure that vision, delivery, and the intersection thereof are considered at every stage of the policy process.
The author's solution to the government's lack of foresight is to try harder next time. He also assumes politicians care about the feasibility or success of their policies beyond the extent necessary to get reelected.

Quote:
Provide the funding, staff, and collateral capacity to succeed.
Ie, we didn't take enough from the taxpayers the first time. Only government gets more money for failing.

Quote:
Flatten the chain of command and cut the bloat.
Obviously I agree. But this bloat came about by our politicians seeking graft. The author assumes we can find angels to run the powerful government he favors.

Quote:
Select presidential appointees for their effectiveness, not connections.
Or maybe selecting the president and congressmen themselves based on effectiveness and not connections.

All the author is really saying here is that government would be perfect if intelligent and moral people ran it. That's not a solution, that's wishful thinking.
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
golden_cow2 wrote:
Well, I don't think we needed a study to know that but let's see what we got.

Quote:
Government failure was not always so predictably unpredictable. Name a significant domestic or international problem that the nation confronted after World War II, and the federal government almost certainly did something about it, and often with great success.
The after WW2 qualifier was necessary, because WW2 was a big enough blunder.

Quote:
And although it did not win Lyndon Johnson’s war on poverty, it did halve the effects of misfortune.
What?

Quote:
the federal government creates miracles every day, often in spite of ever-tighter budgets
Maybe the allotment to each government program is getting smaller (I don't know), but the budget itself is certainly not getting tighter.

Quote:
1. Most of the failures involved errors of omission, not commission.
Most of the failures that the author picked (apparently by his own opinion on what constitutes failure) from a new aggregate. It is only natural that headline news covers disasters and cases where the government fails to act (government acting detrimentally to the people is, unfortunately, too common to be news).

Quote:
And it did not design the Byzantine instruments that triggered the banking collapse in 2008, but had little capacity to stop the risk.
The only thing Byzantine is federal bank regulation. And if the Fed had no power to stop a financial collapse, it is only because they -- the controllers of the money supply -- created those conditions in the first place.

Quote:
It could be that bureaucracies are inherently vulnerable to failure regardless of funding, hierarchy, dependencies, and public angst toward big organizations of any kind.
He brings this up, and then throws it away without any consideration.

Quote:
Government can fail for many reasons, including some that are well beyond its control. Poorly designed policies come from Congress and the president, for example, and may be impossible to implement regardless of bureaucratic commitment. Moreover, government cannot always do more with less, compensate for poor leadership, and manage the confusion created by duplication and overlap on Capitol Hill.
"Beyond it's control" is a code word for "short-sighted central planning" and "bureaucratic inefficiency and corruption" apparently.

Quote:
the policy might have been ... delegated to a vulnerable or historically unreliable organization.
Like itself.

Quote:
After all, most Americans want more of almost everything government delivers, and are highly favorable toward most federal agencies and government employees
I really don't understand how he can make bald-faced lies like that, when his own source disagrees. You'd be pressed to find an opinion poll where even a slim majority approves of a government action, let alone "most Americans."

Quote:
For their part, Democrats did their best to ignore the slow decimation of government capacity
The what-down? Federal power has only grown.

Quote:
The first step toward reducing government failure is to make sure that vision, delivery, and the intersection thereof are considered at every stage of the policy process.
The author's solution to the government's lack of foresight is to try harder next time. He also assumes politicians care about the feasibility or success of their policies beyond the extent necessary to get reelected.

Quote:
Provide the funding, staff, and collateral capacity to succeed.
Ie, we didn't take enough from the taxpayers the first time. Only government gets more money for failing.

Quote:
Flatten the chain of command and cut the bloat.
Obviously I agree. But this bloat came about by our politicians seeking graft. The author assumes we can find angels to run the powerful government he favors.

Quote:
Select presidential appointees for their effectiveness, not connections.
Or maybe selecting the president and congressmen themselves based on effectiveness and not connections.

All the author is really saying here is that government would be perfect if intelligent and moral people ran it. That's not a solution, that's wishful thinking.
Sorry but when government was small there was still endemic graft. Small or big makes no difference to either efficiency or honesty.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Born To Lose, Live To Win
United States
South Euclid
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
"Captain, although your abilities intrigue me, you are quite honestly inferior"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bjlillo wrote:
So government fails because Republicans are big meanies and Democrats just aren't leftist enough. Got it.


But that you don't agree is part of the problem.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Seifert
United States
Little Canada
Minnesota
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
slatersteven wrote:
Sorry but when government was small there was still endemic graft. Small or big makes no difference to either efficiency or honesty.


I don't claim otherwise, but if the government does not have the power to grant special privileges (such as subsidies) then the damage is limited. If lobbying occurs then, it is lobbying to try and get the government to assume new powers (so it can then grant privileges to the lobbyists). Through this and the politicians natural tendency to want more power, the small government will always grow large.

As for when government was small, I don't think it was ever small enough. Even George Washington chartered the First National Bank.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kelsey Rinella
United States
Rochester
New York
flag msg tools
I am proud to have opposed those who describe all who oppose them as "Tender Flowers" and "Special Snowflakes".
badge
Check out Stately Play for news and reviews of games worth thinking about.
Avatar
mbmb
bjlillo wrote:
So government fails because Republicans are big meanies and Democrats just aren't leftist enough. Got it.


Yeah--I basically agree with the author on this, and it STILL read as an opinion piece presented as a study.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
golden_cow2 wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
Sorry but when government was small there was still endemic graft. Small or big makes no difference to either efficiency or honesty.


I don't claim otherwise, but if the government does not have the power to grant special privileges (ie, it is small), then the amount of damage graft can do is limited. Political lobbying, in fact, historically leads to greater government power.

As for when government was small, I don't think it was ever small enough. Even George Washington chartered the First National Bank.
How would small governemnt not be able to grant special privileges, are you saying that should not have the power to grant planning permission, or award contracts?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Seifert
United States
Little Canada
Minnesota
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
slatersteven wrote:
How would small governemnt not be able to grant special privileges, are you saying that should not have the power to grant planning permission, or award contracts?
To be clear, I define "small" as "unable (or unwilling) to violate property rights*". Government contracts, which are funded by stealing from the taxpayer, are a violation of rights. By definition, a small government would grant no subsidies, would grant no special privileges, would restrict no freedoms, etc. beyond what is necessary to guarantee property rights.

* property rights being ownership of yourself and your belongings, along with the ability to do whatever you wish with your belongings as long as it does not violate the rights of someone else.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
golden_cow2 wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
How would small governemnt not be able to grant special privileges, are you saying that should not have the power to grant planning permission, or award contracts?
To be clear, I define "small" as "unable (or unwilling) to violate property rights*". Government contracts, which are funded by stealing from the taxpayer, are a violation of rights. By definition, a small government would grant no subsidies, would grant no special privileges, would restrict no freedoms, etc. beyond what is necessary to guarantee property rights.

* property rights being ownership of yourself and your belongings, along with the ability to do whatever you wish with your belongings as long as it does not violate the rights of someone else.
So who would pay to maintain the roads?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
golden_cow2 wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
How would small governemnt not be able to grant special privileges, are you saying that should not have the power to grant planning permission, or award contracts?
To be clear, I define "small" as "unable (or unwilling) to violate property rights*". Government contracts, which are funded by stealing from the taxpayer, are a violation of rights. By definition, a small government would grant no subsidies, would grant no special privileges, would restrict no freedoms, etc. beyond what is necessary to guarantee property rights.

* property rights being ownership of yourself and your belongings, along with the ability to do whatever you wish with your belongings as long as it does not violate the rights of someone else.


So by small you mean powerless. Your argument sounds like an objectivist who doesn't want to be outted. The control of specific freedoms agreed upon by the slciety and the assignment/manipulation of property rights (which only exist under government to begin with) is kind of the whole reason people do the society thing.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Seifert
United States
Little Canada
Minnesota
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
slatersteven wrote:
So who would pay to maintain the roads?


Private roads already exist. It is not true that, because government currently funds something, it must be funded by government. I'm of firm belief that roads could be provided for on an entirely private basis. I cannot say who, specifically, would fund the roads, or what form a private road business would take (if that were possible, then central planning would not have the disastrous track record it does), but I could post several paragraphs of speculation.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave G
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
El Chupacabratwurst
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
golden_cow2 wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
How would small governemnt not be able to grant special privileges, are you saying that should not have the power to grant planning permission, or award contracts?
To be clear, I define "small" as "unable (or unwilling) to violate property rights*". Government contracts, which are funded by stealing from the taxpayer, are a violation of rights. By definition, a small government would grant no subsidies, would grant no special privileges, would restrict no freedoms, etc. beyond what is necessary to guarantee property rights.

* property rights being ownership of yourself and your belongings, along with the ability to do whatever you wish with your belongings as long as it does not violate the rights of someone else.


Oh great. Another one of these.
14 
 Thumb up
0.10
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
golden_cow2 wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
So who would pay to maintain the roads?


Private roads already exist. It is not true that, because government currently funds something, it must be funded by government. I'm of firm belief that roads could be provided for on an entirely private basis. I cannot say who, specifically, would fund the roads, or what form a private road business would take (if that were possible, then central planning would not have the disastrous track record it does), but I could post several paragraphs of speculation.


Feudalism FTW!
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
djgutierrez77 wrote:
golden_cow2 wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
How would small governemnt not be able to grant special privileges, are you saying that should not have the power to grant planning permission, or award contracts?
To be clear, I define "small" as "unable (or unwilling) to violate property rights*". Government contracts, which are funded by stealing from the taxpayer, are a violation of rights. By definition, a small government would grant no subsidies, would grant no special privileges, would restrict no freedoms, etc. beyond what is necessary to guarantee property rights.

* property rights being ownership of yourself and your belongings, along with the ability to do whatever you wish with your belongings as long as it does not violate the rights of someone else.


Oh great. Another one of these.


Get used to it. This shit sounds great in tweets and soundbites. As long as you stick only with proximate logic and don't think too deeply it is very appealing. Like ignoring the cough on a well-presented prostitute.
6 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Seifert
United States
Little Canada
Minnesota
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Shadrach wrote:
So by small you mean powerless.
Powerless in what sense? A small government certainly has less powers such as the ability to grant welfare, lock people in jail for doing drugs, bomb Iraqis, etc, but it certainly should have the power to protect people's rights (which is kinda the reason people do the society thing).

Quote:
Your argument sounds like an objectivist who doesn't want to be outted
It's not like I'm trying to hide the fact I'm a libertarian. I'm not interested in the kooky metaphysicalness of objectivist philosophy though (and I find Rand's views on intellectual property ridiculous)

Quote:
The control of specific freedoms agreed upon by the society and the assignment/manipulation of property rights (which only exist under government to begin with) is kind of the whole reason people do the society thing.
I'd disagree that property rights don't exist without the government, but I don't want to argue that point. What I want to respond to is the statement that people "do the society thing". Society and government are not the same thing. No government* in history has been consented to by a majority of society, unless you believe passively submitting is consent (which would mean people consent to being mugged if they don't fight back).

*Okay, that is probably hyperbole, but any government that was founded on consent was undoubtedly small or was essentially a private contract. Major governments, such as the U.S., Russia, Britain, etc. were established by a slim percentage of the population. Not that a large percentage would be much better, as you can't claim that majority rule is moral through a majority vote -- 100% consensus is necessary.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Okay let me preface this whole thing that while I may seem hostile to you, I'm not. I'm hostile to the short sighted thinking that ramps up these arguments. I just assume you're a well intention-ed person who hasn't dug deeply enough into the arguments yet. I could be wrong though. You could just be an anarchist or a Luddite, but I'll assume no.

golden_cow2 wrote:
Shadrach wrote:
So by small you mean powerless.
Powerless in what sense? A small government certainly has less powers such as the ability to grant welfare, lock people in jail for doing drugs, bomb Iraqis, etc, but it certainly should have the power to protect people's rights (which is kinda the reason people do the society thing).


Protect who's rights? What Rights are being protected? The concept of 'rights' in a real sense is nothing more than a set of standards which the society in question has set up to be the core of their beliefs. 'Rights' here and 'Rights' in another country can be fundamentally different in form and execution. Keeping this in mind you find that government has no ability to protect one person's 'rights' without limiting another person's 'freedoms.' To claim that a government must protect a set of rights without any power of inducement seems silly. Also:Quoting specific policies you disagree with isn't a solid indictment of 'government' just of the policies you disagree with. You don't burn down the house because you dislike the color of the paint. Unless you're in North Carolina it seems.
Quote:

Quote:
Your argument sounds like an objectivist who doesn't want to be outted
It's not like I'm trying to hide the fact I'm a libertarian. I'm not interested in the kooky metaphysicalness of objectivist philosophy though (and I find Rand's views on intellectual property ridiculous)

How do you personally feel the Libertarian ideal is any more workable than the Objectivist or the Communist ideal? IE Not at all.

Quote:

Quote:
The control of specific freedoms agreed upon by the society and the assignment/manipulation of property rights (which only exist under government to begin with) is kind of the whole reason people do the society thing.
I'd disagree that property rights don't exist without the government, but I don't want to argue that point. What I want to respond to is the statement that people "do the society thing". Society and government are not the same thing. No government* in history has been consented to by a majority of society, unless you believe passively submitting is consent (which would mean people consent to being mugged if they don't fight back).

*Okay, that is probably hyperbole, but any government that was founded on consent was undoubtedly small or was essentially a private contract. Major governments, such as the U.S., Russia, Britain, etc. were established by a slim percentage of the population. Not that a large percentage would be much better, as you can't claim that majority rule is moral through a majority vote -- 100% consensus is necessary.


You can't make a painfully easily refutable claim like 'Property rights exist without government' and use it as a cornerstone for a political and societal ideal without defending it. You have to explain it or your whole house of cards comes crashing down. You might as well start explaining Astonomy in terms of Phlogiston but say you don't feel like arguing about it's existence.

Wouldn't Athens count as your consent of the Majority? I mean Helots don't count, they were property, and you're all for property rights.

How does a society under your standards function? 100% consent is required for legitimacy? So if one individual says 'ehhn I don't like it. I'm not going to leave, but I don't like it.' The whole thing falls apart? Exactly what size do you expect society to function on? If the answer is more than a handful of people in any societal group then please explain how you achieve a level of agreement unheard of in reality. If you only expect government to function at the under 50(to be generous) or so level and only to the point where a significant portion of those 50 or so people decide they no longer want to play nice with the rest then are you willing to accept the level of warfare over resources, the de-evolution of our complex society, and the loss of advancement that all entails? Maybe you are.
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
golden_cow2 wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
So who would pay to maintain the roads?


Private roads already exist. It is not true that, because government currently funds something, it must be funded by government. I'm of firm belief that roads could be provided for on an entirely private basis. I cannot say who, specifically, would fund the roads, or what form a private road business would take (if that were possible, then central planning would not have the disastrous track record it does), but I could post several paragraphs of speculation.
Yes, private roads do already exists, I use some of them, and they might as well not be there. I also know of private roads that bar non residents from using them. What do you think would happen to our infrastructure if all roads were private?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Seifert
United States
Little Canada
Minnesota
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Shadrach wrote:
You could just be an anarchist ... but I'll assume no.
That's the logical conclusion of "as small a government as necessary" so I do like to think of myself as one. If a voluntarist society is possible, it should be established. If this opens me up to getting called stupid in a passive-aggressive tone again, then I'm done here.

Quote:
The concept of 'rights' in a real sense is nothing more than a set of standards which the society in question has set up to be the core of their beliefs. 'Rights' here and 'Rights' in another country can be fundamentally different in form and execution.
I agree that what rights get enforced is a product of society. I admit that, in anarchism, the Lockean system of homesteading and indefinite ownership might not be respected. But there is a difference between society deciding rights and the government deciding rights. First, as I mentioned before, you cannot say that the set of rights the government decided upon is the choice society made as no government was founded by society. Second, under anarchism, the society does not have the power to tax those who disagree with their set of rights (if they did, it wouldn't be anarchism). If a portion of society wants their set of rights enforced, they must use their own resources do so.

Quote:
Keeping this in mind you find that government has no ability to protect one person's 'rights' without limiting another person's 'freedoms.'
Yes, it is contradictory to believe in a protector of property rights funded through taxation (if that is what you were referring to) which is why I'm an anarchist and not a minarchist. I only defend minarchy because I think it's more politically achievable.

Quote:
Also:Quoting specific policies you disagree with isn't a solid indictment of 'government' just of the policies you disagree with.
I never tried indict government based off the failure of specific policies. They are just examples of the point I actually made -- that as government grows larger it becomes more inefficient and corrupt. Morally, I am against government as an initiator of force. Practically, I am against government because of its effect on the market economy. My indictment comes from there.

Quote:
How do you personally feel the Libertarian ideal is any more workable than the Objectivist or the Communist ideal? IE Not at all.
What kind of question is this? You just offhandedly dismiss libertarianism with no arguments whatsoever and expect me to respond to that. Do you want me to paraphrase the entire works of Mises and Rothbard?

Quote:
You can't make a painfully easily refutable claim like 'Property rights exist without government' and use it as a cornerstone for a political and societal ideal without defending it.

I did not defend it because I assumed it was tangential to the discussion -- my defense of limited government. Let me amend myself by saying "I believe property rights would be mostly respected under anarchism, at least more-so than they are in current society". I again don't really care to argue the point, as the "cornerstone" of my argument is not that but rather "the amount of coercion (initiation of force) in society should be minimized".

Quote:
Wouldn't Athens count as your consent of the Majority? I mean Helots don't count, they were property, and you're all for property rights.
How can you claim to not be hostile to me when you pull a straw man like this? "Libertarians believe in slavery"? Honestly?

As for Athens, no. Of course not. The Athenian constitution was written by a single man commissioned by the previous government.

Quote:
How does a society under your standards function? 100% consent is required for legitimacy? So if one individual says 'ehhn I don't like it. I'm not going to leave, but I don't like it.' The whole thing falls apart? Exactly what size do you expect society to function on?
Again, you confuse society and government and assume a government is necessary for society to function. And of course 100% consent is required for legitimacy, because otherwise you must agree that two men voting to rob a third is entirely legitimate. If anarchism is as disastrous as you claim, then I agree an illegitimate government is better than no government at all. If.
2 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
golden_cow2 wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
How would small governemnt not be able to grant special privileges, are you saying that should not have the power to grant planning permission, or award contracts?
To be clear, I define "small" as "unable (or unwilling) to violate property rights*". Government contracts, which are funded by stealing from the taxpayer, are a violation of rights. By definition, a small government would grant no subsidies, would grant no special privileges, would restrict no freedoms, etc. beyond what is necessary to guarantee property rights.

* property rights being ownership of yourself and your belongings, along with the ability to do whatever you wish with your belongings as long as it does not violate the rights of someone else.


A society where the government lacks the power to control the wealthy, the corporations, and the ruthless would not possess any of the "rights" you speak of. That's just a historical fact.
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/economic-develop...

Quote:

Weak States, Poor Countries
...
Americans, like many citizens of rich countries, take for granted the legal and regulatory system, the public schools, health care and social security for the elderly, roads, defense and diplomacy, and heavy investments by the state in research, particularly in medicine. Certainly, not all of these services are as good as they might be, nor held in equal regard by everyone; but people mostly pay their taxes, and if the way that money is spent offends some, a lively public debate ensues, and regular elections allow people to change priorities.
...
In much of Africa and Asia, states lack the capacity to raise taxes or deliver services. The contract between government and governed – imperfect in rich countries – is often altogether absent in poor countries.
...
Throughout the developing world, children die because they are born in the wrong place – not of exotic, incurable diseases, but of the commonplace childhood illnesses that we have known how to treat for almost a century. Without a state that is capable of delivering routine maternal and child health care, these children will continue to die.
...
Likewise, without government capacity, regulation and enforcement do not work properly, so businesses find it difficult to operate. Without properly functioning civil courts, there is no guarantee that innovative entrepreneurs can claim the rewards of their ideas.

The absence of state capacity – that is, of the services and protections that people in rich countries take for granted – is one of the major causes of poverty and deprivation around the world.


You really need to think what you mean by small government. At best, what you probably really mean if you are thinking about it is 2 to 3% smaller.
4 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
golden_cow2 wrote:
Shadrach wrote:
You could just be an anarchist ... but I'll assume no.
That's the logical conclusion of "as small a government as necessary" so I do like to think of myself as one. If a voluntarist society is possible, it should be established. If this opens me up to getting called stupid in a passive-aggressive tone again, then I'm done here.

Quote:
The concept of 'rights' in a real sense is nothing more than a set of standards which the society in question has set up to be the core of their beliefs. 'Rights' here and 'Rights' in another country can be fundamentally different in form and execution.
I agree that what rights get enforced is a product of society. I admit that, in anarchism, the Lockean system of homesteading and indefinite ownership might not be respected. But there is a difference between society deciding rights and the government deciding rights. First, as I mentioned before, you cannot say that the set of rights the government decided upon is the choice society made as no government was founded by society. Second, under anarchism, the society does not have the power to tax those who disagree with their set of rights (if they did, it wouldn't be anarchism). If a portion of society wants their set of rights enforced, they must use their own resources do so.

Quote:
Keeping this in mind you find that government has no ability to protect one person's 'rights' without limiting another person's 'freedoms.'
Yes, it is contradictory to believe in a protector of property rights funded through taxation (if that is what you were referring to) which is why I'm an anarchist and not a minarchist. I only defend minarchy because I think it's more politically achievable.

Quote:
Also:Quoting specific policies you disagree with isn't a solid indictment of 'government' just of the policies you disagree with.
I never tried indict government based off the failure of specific policies. They are just examples of the point I actually made -- that as government grows larger it becomes more inefficient and corrupt. Morally, I am against government as an initiator of force. Practically, I am against government because of its effect on the market economy. My indictment comes from there.

Quote:
How do you personally feel the Libertarian ideal is any more workable than the Objectivist or the Communist ideal? IE Not at all.
What kind of question is this? You just offhandedly dismiss libertarianism with no arguments whatsoever and expect me to respond to that. Do you want me to paraphrase the entire works of Mises and Rothbard?

Quote:
You can't make a painfully easily refutable claim like 'Property rights exist without government' and use it as a cornerstone for a political and societal ideal without defending it.

I did not defend it because I assumed it was tangential to the discussion -- my defense of limited government. Let me amend myself by saying "I believe property rights would be mostly respected under anarchism, at least more-so than they are in current society". I again don't really care to argue the point, as the "cornerstone" of my argument is not that but rather "the amount of coercion (initiation of force) in society should be minimized".

Quote:
Wouldn't Athens count as your consent of the Majority? I mean Helots don't count, they were property, and you're all for property rights.
How can you claim to not be hostile to me when you pull a straw man like this? "Libertarians believe in slavery"? Honestly?

As for Athens, no. Of course not. The Athenian constitution was written by a single man commissioned by the previous government.

Quote:
How does a society under your standards function? 100% consent is required for legitimacy? So if one individual says 'ehhn I don't like it. I'm not going to leave, but I don't like it.' The whole thing falls apart? Exactly what size do you expect society to function on?
Again, you confuse society and government and assume a government is necessary for society to function. And of course 100% consent is required for legitimacy, because otherwise you must agree that two men voting to rob a third is entirely legitimate. If anarchism is as disastrous as you claim, then I agree an illegitimate government is better than no government at all. If.


Now that we've cleared some things up. I'll alleviate your worries about passive aggressivism. You're an idiot. Worse, you're a dime-store idiot. There, nothing passive about that.

The notion that property rights are respected under any form of anarchism is so basely wrongheaded in light of all things historical, psychological, and biological as to be mind-numbingly impossible to even engage in. It's like someone not accepting the effects(much less the principal) of gravity and wanting to discuss what keeps us on the planet.

I don't know where you come from or what your background is, but I'm wagering it's a nice first world country where the concepts of scarcity and the impact of the sort of lack of structure you propose have never once graced your doorstep.

Pure Egalitarianism does not exist even within the family unit. There is a leader, an elder, etc and there are very good reasons for this based on millions of years of survival. I can't even approach the argument unless you're willing to do some further research and come to grips with exactly what you're proposing.

7 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric "Shippy McShipperson" Mowrer
United States
Vancouver
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Ami. Geek.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Best case scenario, it would work in a very small village. With 6+ billion people? About as likely as the other extreme in which we ban GMO foods and only eat organic local veggies and free range meat. It's. Not. Possible. On. A. Large. Scale.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Edwards
United Kingdom
Chigwell, Essex, London
Unspecified
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
The funny thing is that its not actually the rich, powerful people in our societies pushing for this kind of future. Sure they want lower taxes and less regulations affecting their businesses and all that and may adopt some of the rhetoric from time to time but the overall structure of our societies suits such people just fine.

The proponents always seem to be those to whom the basic concept is ideologically attractive to the point that it simply seems irresistable. Actual outcomes seem secondary at best (such as when you simply handwave something really quite important like "how will the roads work" or "how will I get stable electricity and other utilities" as if it will just magically sort itself out due to the essential rightness of the idea).

Its as if any society that doesn't align with their concept of natural rights is essentially defective to the point that their ideal society must be better even if it does have flaws.
5 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Robbins
United States
Alcoa
Tennessee
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ejmowrer wrote:
Best case scenario, it would work in a very small village. With 6+ billion people? About as likely as the other extreme in which we ban GMO foods and only eat organic local veggies and free range meat. It's. Not. Possible. On. A. Large. Scale.


7+ billion people. Do try and keep up. wow
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric "Shippy McShipperson" Mowrer
United States
Vancouver
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Ami. Geek.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bltzlfsk wrote:
ejmowrer wrote:
Best case scenario, it would work in a very small village. With 6+ billion people? About as likely as the other extreme in which we ban GMO foods and only eat organic local veggies and free range meat. It's. Not. Possible. On. A. Large. Scale.


7+ billion people. Do try and keep up. wow


Guess what + means.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.