What should government do?

[pcosmar]

For starters, shrink 98%.

a good start,

I have 99.8 % in mind.

 

[pcosmar]

Whats your alternative? Competing police forces?

No.
NO Police Force at all.
People are quite capable of policing themselves,, and did so for a hundred years in this country before Police were invented.

The only purpose for any "government" is to represent the people..
Locally to the county.. County to the state,, State to other States.
It should facilitate trade and mediate disputes.

And if necessary,, to unify individuals in common defense.

Mostly it should stay out of everyone's way.

 

[jllundqu]

A good discussion. I'm with GWAX on this one. Minarchy is more workable than Anarchy. Anarchy would only work if everyone in the society was on board with the idea. If a group of people in that society dont agree with anarchy and decide they want some level of government, be it a court or defense of borders, then the anarchist system fails. Good luck trying to convince liberals and progressives. Minarchy is workable. Minarchy is not perfect, but would provide what I (and I believe Ron Paul) believe to be the minimum functions of government. Minarchy does violate the NAP by the very fact that government = force and minarchy = minimum government.

 

[gwax23]

kcchiefs6465 I think your getting too caught up in semantics, definitions, and trivial distinctions. Further the costs your citing for veterans health is exaggerated. Our current healthcare costs are grossly inflated by government. Prices for health care wouldn't be anywhere near what they are today, with a true free market. A minarchy would not be fighting several wars a decade so the number of soldiers with health/psychological problems would be far fewer, and of those care would be provided to the needy, many in a free market would do quite well for themselves and not need the veteran assistance. But this is such a side topic. The core of the issue at hand is if Minarchy is impossible and unsustainable than so is Anarchy. Further Youd probably have to reach some semblance of Minarchy before we could realistically back the next jump to a stateless society.

Sure Minarchy isnt as "Pure" but its more achievable and sustainable. Further is is 98% in line with anarcho Capitalist principles. A stateless society is just a theory in the minds of its believers. Its something we should strive for but realize in the back of our minds we probably wont ever achieve it.

 

[osan]

The government shouldn't really exist to begin with. HOWEVER, in a society where the state will not or cannot be dismantled, then the purpose of government is to look after the general welfare of the people, but not of the business. That being said, the size of the nation and the level of government ought to be considered. Federal governments of a large nation shouldn't really do much other than supplement the lower levels of government, while the lower levels should have more direct influence on the areas it governs.

As such, a lower branch of government ought to:

To provide adequate health care.
To maintain a humane quality of life for all.
To educate its citizens.
To enforce certain environmental standards.
To enforce a certain standard in professional business
To maintain infrastructure
To have some degree of law enforcement (at the lowest level)
To legislate
To be completely transparent


With that in mind, the government should not heavily arm law enforcement, and it should not selectively enforce laws and regulations. It cannot deny the citizens a quality of life appropriate for modernized society, and it cannot deny its citizens humane treatment. However, that is unenforcible without watchdogs in place.

I am compelled to wonder whether this represents some record for the number of contradictory elements in a single post.

It almost makes my head hurt.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

kcchiefs6465 I think your getting too caught up in semantics, definitions, and trivial distinctions. Further the costs your citing for veterans health is exaggerated. Our current healthcare costs are grossly inflated by government. Prices for health care wouldn't be anywhere near what they are today, with a true free market. A minarchy would not be fighting several wars a decade so the number of soldiers with health/psychological problems would be far fewer, and of those care would be provided to the needy, many in a free market would do quite well for themselves and not need the veteran assistance. But this is such a side topic. The core of the issue at hand is if Minarchy is impossible and unsustainable than so is Anarchy. Further Youd probably have to reach some semblance of Minarchy before we could realistically back the next jump to a stateless society.

Sure Minarchy isnt as "Pure" but its more achievable and sustainable. Further is is 98% in line with anarcho Capitalist principles. A stateless society is just a theory in the minds of its believers. Its something we should strive for but realize in the back of our minds we probably wont ever achieve it.

Conclusions do not flow logically from the premises. Formally, this is wrong. Maybe there's a way to prove this informally...I'm not sure.

 

[osan]

A good discussion. I'm with GWAX on this one. Minarchy is more workable than Anarchy. Anarchy would only work if everyone in the society was on board with the idea.

May I point out that this is actually untrue? Firstly, I do not think there is so much as a single instance of a nation-state where everybody was on board. In one way and degree or another force has ALWAYS been threatened or applied to some proportion of a nation's population.

A properly free land where the spirit of the people was strong and right would not require everyone to be on board. The will to freedom would force the minorities to toe a line of respect for their rights, and this is as it ought to be. Some may blanche and think "the NAP!", but there is no problem in any of this because the threat and possible use of force would always be reactive to the aggressions of anyone in those minorities who attempted to violate the freedoms of the rest. So if you had a minority of communists who wanted to live in a communist paradise, they would be free to try to establish such an arrangement for themselves, but they would not be free to impose that configuration upon anyone against their will. If they cannot make it work, tough. If they then attempt to use force against the rest because they claim that communism cannot work unless the "state" holds 100% ownership and control over everything including the people, they end up dead as the rest react in defense of their rights, no violation of non-trespass having occurred. If your configuration requires the violation of the rights of anyone unwilling to go along on your ride, then you have chosen a social arrangement that is invalid. It is as plain and simple as that.

The hitch, of course, is that this require intelligence, smarts, intolerance of the intolerable, and the attitude and willingness to kill your fellows when they attempt to violate your just claims to life. I see nothing different in principle between a man seeking to take my life away or my briefcase. The fundamental nature of the offense is precisely the same and therefore if I am justified in killing my assailant who is trying to kill me, I am equally justified in killing the one who seeks to steal that briefcase. The arguments against this equation are pure error because they invalidate principles that can be demonstrated as correct and as applying across the spectrum of violation. Given this, then one must decide whether he will live by principle or forsake it. You cannot have it both ways. If an act stands to cause you harm, you are within your right to take whatever measures you deem fit to prevent harm from being visited upon you.

If a group of people in that society dont agree with anarchy and decide they want some level of government, be it a court or defense of borders, then the anarchist system fails.

Precisely and diametrically backwards. As I wrote just above, if a group wants a court, they are free to form and operate one. They are not, however, free to impose jurisdiction upon others, but only to those subscribing. If they want to impose their courst upon the rest, it would be justifiable to kill such people for attempting to subjugate and enslave others. People, being as they tend, would most likely give such would-be usurpers the chance to back off, perhaps after reading them the riot act. But at some point, those being offended by the usurpers fall very much within the bounds not only of justification, but of good reason and propriety in deciding to kill those who would trample make incursions upon your rightful territory. At the end of the path of violation death must perforce reside if rights and their material defense are to have any true meaning beyond mere jaw-work.

Good luck trying to convince liberals and progressives.

Methinks you can already guess my response to this.

Minarchy is workable.

So is authoritarianism. Workability is a secondary issue in the sense that all manner of horrors are workable. Don't forget, "workable" says nothing of durability. Stalin's soviet lasted 75 years. That is a fairly long lifetime and many people do not make that far. Had we not driven them into the dirt with Reagan's arms race I daresay they would still be with us and perhaps for another generation or two. Workability would seem a necessary condition but not sufficient in itself.

Minarchy is not perfect, but would provide what I (and I believe Ron Paul) believe to be the minimum functions of government.

A couple of issues. Firstly, "minimum" function is not defined. Secondly, trying to get even small populations to agree on what those functions should be would be an impossible task because there would still be those who would assert that their monthly welfare check and free birth control were absolutely necessary.

You must believe she I tell you that freedom is the only viable way. Anything else is doomed to fail because our very nature guarantees it.

Minarchy does violate the NAP by the very fact that government = force and minarchy = minimum government.

Ohh... d00d, you need to revisit that one. Minarchy, regardless of how minimum or how well intentioned its administrators, is by its fundamental nature arbitrary. This fact cannot be escaped. No matter how tiny you make it, you will eventually affect some violent action on someone, regardless of how miniscule and seemingly innocuous. The mechanism for usurpation is built into it and there is NOTHING you can do to eliminate it. Therefore, the door to tyrannyis ALWAYS ajar because aggression is an inherent part of such a system and there is no way you can guarantee that the gestapo will never go rogue along the lines of the principles upon which the minarchy is founded, changing in no manner save in degree only. All manner of atrocity has been justified in the name of nationalism, racial purity, ideological purity, national security, and so forth. Autodiathism draws a bright, crisp, and absolute line in the sand that minarchy cannot perforce do. That is a fundamental difference, and so if you are going to adopt minarchism, then honesty, integrity, and intelligence demand you at least acknowledge the hazard-fraught nature of doing so and that in so doing you expose everyone to those grave risks and indeed force them to adopt that which holds no appeal. You've started out, your first footstep an act of tyranny regardless of how seemingly innocent and sensible.

 

[osan]

Government doesn't exist.

It does as a concept within people's skulls, but not as a material entity in and of itself, you are 100% correct. The same can be said of the "state" and "the people", and so on down a goodly list of frauds that have been perpetrated against people for millennia.

[G]overnment itself isn't real. It has no genuine power. Only that of fear, much like fear of hell. Government is a more powerful religion than any other. More people worship this god, than all other gods combined. Most people place the moral dictates of this god above the moral dictates of whatever other religion they profess to belong to, to the point where they truly fear breaking Godverments law, but have no fear of breaking their so-called supreme being's commandments.

If it is not real, it cannot have anything. The people purporting to be part of "government" at any given time, OTOH, do. Responsibility is theirs because it is they and ot "government" who destroy property that is not theirs to destroy and take life with no justification. It is never anything beyond the individual that acts and does either good or evil. The labels of "government" and "state" have no valid meaning and because the concepts have no reality outside of our thoughts, they cannot possess anything including power, authority, rights, property. These concepts are the tools used to perpetrate the most universally pervasive, openly dangerous, disease-carrying, and destructive hoax ever. And it has worked like a charm.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

You are probably right, Gwax, with regards to post #24. There are previous obligations that need tended to if you are ever to convince the public that minarchy is the ideal though. Veteran's assistance is one of them. Now of course I understand that the conflicts wouldn't have been fought under a minarchist society. That doesn't change the fact that they were fought. The inflated costs of healthcare also does not change the fact that the cost is staggering in any imagination of the word or any expression of the debt (whether the number is an inflated figure or not). Perhaps not as high of numbers, with regards to inflated FRNs, but with regards to actual wealth, there is no doubt paying some 50-60 years on severely disabled veteran's healthcare (from the Iraq war) is going to affect us greatly.

As to whether or not minarchy is unsustainable I would just say this, "Freedom is unsustainable.... without a diligent populace." Sure it will work, but I more see it as humanity coming due for another enlightenment where the role or even necessity of government is questioned. The tool of the internet is making monumental strides in this regard. Whether or not it is censored and the intellectual revolution stymied is something to be seen. In any case, it either will happen, or it won't. Ever.

If minarchism is the step needed to fulfill freedom than I am happy with that. Your society would appeal to me more if I could opt out from any benefits and simply be left be.

 

[gwax23]

You are probably right, Gwax, with regards to post #24. There are previous obligations that need tended to if you are ever to convince the public that minarchy is the ideal though. Veteran's assistance is one of them. Now of course I understand that the conflicts wouldn't have been fought under a minarchist society. That doesn't change the fact that they were fought. The inflated costs of healthcare also does not change the fact that the cost is staggering in any imagination of the word or any expression of the debt (whether the number is an inflated figure or not). Perhaps not as high of numbers, with regards to inflated FRNs, but with regards to actual wealth, there is no doubt paying some 50-60 years on severely disabled veteran's healthcare (from the Iraq war) is going to affect us greatly.

As to whether or not minarchy is unsustainable I would just say this, "Freedom is unsustainable.... without a diligent populace." Sure it will work, but I more see it as humanity coming due for another enlightenment where the role or even necessity of government is questioned. The tool of the internet is making monumental strides in this regard. Whether or not it is censored and the intellectual revolution stymied is something to be seen. In any case, it either will happen, or it won't. Ever.

If minarchism is the step needed to fulfill freedom than I am happy with that. Your society would appeal to me more if I could opt out from any benefits and simply be left be.

Okay good way to end the discussion. We both reached an agreement.

 

[ctiger2]

Get lost

 

[acptulsa]

I clicked on this thread full well prepared to +rep everyone who asked the question, 'Which government?'

No rep for any of you.

If you decide you would like to get together with the other members of your community and establish a water company and a paid, professional fire department, a city government is not a bad way to do it. At that level, if something goes wrong with either or both you can generally hold people accountable, get them out, and get someone competent in.

The problem is when the federal government starts taxing the living snot out of you and giving your local fire department Homeland Security grants. Then suddenly your fire department has more grant proposal writers on staff than firemen. Shortly after that, Washington just takes over. Then suddenly, when something goes wrong at your local fire department, you have to convince about forty million voters that your local fire department is more important than abortion, gay marriage, and their own local fire departments combined. Or else you're just screwed.

You know, all this ancap theoretical discussion is just fine. But I hope we have enough sense to remember to use the county government > federal government argument on the mundanes in order to win them over to our federal candidates. Honest to God I sincerely hope we do.

I do verily believe that a single, consolidated government would become the most corrupt government on the earth.

To me, the neglected portion of the Bill of Rights that we most need to restore is the tail end--the Ninth and Tenth...

 

[Sanguine]

I am compelled to wonder whether this represents some record for the number of contradictory elements in a single post.

It almost makes my head hurt.

It's not contradictory, you just enjoy your political and economic dogma that much. Just because I'm against the existence of government, it doesn't mean that I can't have some standard for the state, should it be impossible to dissolve (such as in capitalist society). It's called adapting.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

It's not contradictory, you just enjoy your political and economic dogma that much. Just because I'm against the existence of government, it doesn't mean that I can't have some standard for the state, should it be impossible to dissolve (such as in capitalist society). It's called adapting.

You are against free association. You are an authoritarian. I have outlined it quite simply in another thread. You believe taking from one to give to another is justified so long as you are assured the right person was taken from and the right person given to. You fail to see the contradiction there in even the most remote of ways.

The difference between what I advocate and what you advocate is this, in your society my property would be subjected to the will, wants, or needs of the people with little to no consideration for my opinion or the fact that it is mine, not yours. In my society, you'd be free to set up your commune, entice people into joining, and delegate what you feel they should get as fair so long as done in a voluntary manner. Do you see?

You would be as bad as any of them. You aren't wise enough to know what people need. The corruption would abound. And frankly, your lack of knowledge, or perhaps simply respect, of rights I find to be troubling.

You can quote Adam Smith from here til funny money burns and it won't change the simple aspect of you having an authoritarian mindset.