Knowledge check: If a government had only 2 functions,what would they be?

[Malawi]

1. ) Leave peaceful citizens the hell alone.

2. ) See 1.

So they should only interfere with violent citizens?

Where would the funds to do so come from?

[1714856725]

1714856725

[1714856725]

1714856725

[1714856725]

1714856725

[Malawi]

People love to talk about market forces solving all problems, but protecting the environment is something that market forces do a very poor job at protecting.  See global warming on a global scale, or overfishing, it's the economic principle of externalities - also referred to as "the tragedy of the commons".

You know how to fix the tragedy of the commons, right?

Well, my memory of economics tells me that the way of fixing the tragedy of the commons would be to build the externalities into the price of whatever is being sold.  In other words, if you were to use gasoline as an example, put a large tax on it to account for the fact that it contributes to global warming.  Over the long run, this will result in a situation where people will drive less, and use smaller cars, thus use less gas. 

So, in this case, the solution is government intervention.  The same idea would apply for many other cases of tragedy of the commons, ie: some species is being overfished?  Declare an area off limits for fishing for a set period of time.  So on and so forth.  I like minimalism in government, but environmental protections like these are regulations that I fully support.

That's a common approach, halfawake, but not the textbook solution. The simple sollution to a "tragedy of the commons" is to privatize the common. That is, give it to someone. This will result in the resource being allocated to its most efficient use (see Coase Theorem).

Lol - so who should own the whole atmosphere?

If you put something in the air like you just don't care, it will either drop straight down or float for some distance. The dropping stuff is your own problem, and so is what only drifts for a small distance. But there is a whole lot of "stuff" that can drift for years.

I live in Norway, and when Chernobyl blew up, we had to throw away a lot of reindeer/sheep/fish etc. due to radiation. What is done in point A can have an effect on point B and even C,D,E etc.

[agentbluescreen]

People love to talk about market forces solving all problems, but protecting the environment is something that market forces do a very poor job at protecting.  See global warming on a global scale, or overfishing, it's the economic principle of externalities - also referred to as "the tragedy of the commons".

You know how to fix the tragedy of the commons, right?

Well, my memory of economics tells me that the way of fixing the tragedy of the commons would be to build the externalities into the price of whatever is being sold.  In other words, if you were to use gasoline as an example, put a large tax on it to account for the fact that it contributes to global warming.  Over the long run, this will result in a situation where people will drive less, and use smaller cars, thus use less gas.  

So, in this case, the solution is government intervention.  The same idea would apply for many other cases of tragedy of the commons, ie: some species is being overfished?  Declare an area off limits for fishing for a set period of time.  So on and so forth.  I like minimalism in government, but environmental protections like these are regulations that I fully support.

In fact thermonuclear communism is the #1 cause of global warming, not fossil fuel burning that produces CO₂ that plants need to breathe to produce oxygen for us. Nuclear reactors dissipate millions of terawatts of completely wasted heat as direct thermal pollution into waterways and seas as do their dangerous eternally-decaying new, used and spent fuel rods. In fact if stored nuclear fuel bundles were to be "racked" within simple, foolproof electrical thermocouples they alone would function as their own nuclear batteries to uninterruptedly power their own stupid water pumps to pollute the earth with the remainder of their wasted heat. This would make external batteries, power or generators to "cool fuel pools" unnecessary and redundant and would have prevented Fukushima. (and a thousand more of them to come)

But, of course, Tory-Trotskyite Federal Reserve private boardroom-socialist communism, dictates that their handsomely-profiting elite foxes always "regulate" our hen-houses.... (while we all face and pay them dearly for the consequences)

All "government" is "socialism". The two words mean the same thing. The more of one you have, the more of the other you end up with.

[Malawi]

People love to talk about market forces solving all problems, but protecting the environment is something that market forces do a very poor job at protecting.  See global warming on a global scale, or overfishing, it's the economic principle of externalities - also referred to as "the tragedy of the commons".

You know how to fix the tragedy of the commons, right?

Well, my memory of economics tells me that the way of fixing the tragedy of the commons would be to build the externalities into the price of whatever is being sold.  In other words, if you were to use gasoline as an example, put a large tax on it to account for the fact that it contributes to global warming.  Over the long run, this will result in a situation where people will drive less, and use smaller cars, thus use less gas.  

So, in this case, the solution is government intervention.  The same idea would apply for many other cases of tragedy of the commons, ie: some species is being overfished?  Declare an area off limits for fishing for a set period of time.  So on and so forth.  I like minimalism in government, but environmental protections like these are regulations that I fully support.

In fact thermonuclear communism is the #1 cause of global warming, not fossil fuel burning. Nuclear reactors dissipate millions of terawatts of completely wasted heat as direct thermal pollution into waterways and seas as do their dangerous eternally-decaying new, used and spent fuel rods. In fact if stored nuclear fuel bundles were to be "racked" within simple, foolproof electrical thermocouples they alone would function as their own nuclear batteries to uninterruptedly power their own stupid water pumps to pollute the earth with the remainder of their wasted heat. This would make external batteries, power or generators to "cool fuel pools" unnecessary and redundant and would have prevented Fukushima. (and a thousand more of them to come)

But, of course, Tory-Trotskyite Federal Reserve private boardroom-socialist communism, dictates that their handsomely-profiting elite foxes always "regulate" our hen-houses.... (while we all face and pay them dearly for the consequences)

(Not wanting this tread to become a GW tread, but still..)

The heat dissipates into space just like the other 99.9% or so of the energy from the sun.
Heat produced by humans have just local effects, the heat will soon radiate away.

Have you ever noticed that a night with clear skies is colder than one where there are clouds? That is because the clouds work like insulation and traps the heat.
(On a cloudy day it's the opposite)

Every day the earth receives enormous quantities of heat from the sun, if not almost all of it went back into space, the earth would be boiling.
The question about global warming is weather a little more insulation is added to the earth or not. It's not about human-produced heat.

[agentbluescreen]

(Not wanting this tread to become a GW tread, but still..)

The heat dissipates into space just like the other 99.9% or so of the energy from the sun.
Heat produced by humans have just local effects, the heat will soon radiate away.

Have you ever noticed that a night with clear skies is colder than one where there are clouds? That is because the clouds work like insulation and traps the heat.
(On a cloudy day it's the opposite)

Every day the earth receives enormous quantities of heat from the sun, if not almost all of it went back into space, the earth would be boiling.
The question about global warming is weather a little more insulation is added to the earth or not. It's not about human-produced heat.

Nature intended things that burn to be burnt. A cloud also introduces a libido (white reflectivity) that repels solar heat during the day. Global warming (night and day) is about unnaturally added excess-heat from our (soullessly bestial destructive-anthropogenic) destructive perversions of nature here. (like the destructive and eternally toxic waste-byproducts of pointless thermonuclear-communist Bohemian Grove terrorism)

If fail to see how anyone could excuse a thousand new honorless-war-communist-made "suns" on the surface of our world as anything "natural".

[myrkul]

People love to talk about market forces solving all problems, but protecting the environment is something that market forces do a very poor job at protecting.  See global warming on a global scale, or overfishing, it's the economic principle of externalities - also referred to as "the tragedy of the commons".

You know how to fix the tragedy of the commons, right?

Well, my memory of economics tells me that the way of fixing the tragedy of the commons would be to build the externalities into the price of whatever is being sold.  In other words, if you were to use gasoline as an example, put a large tax on it to account for the fact that it contributes to global warming.  Over the long run, this will result in a situation where people will drive less, and use smaller cars, thus use less gas. 

So, in this case, the solution is government intervention.  The same idea would apply for many other cases of tragedy of the commons, ie: some species is being overfished?  Declare an area off limits for fishing for a set period of time.  So on and so forth.  I like minimalism in government, but environmental protections like these are regulations that I fully support.

That's a common approach, halfawake, but not the textbook solution. The simple sollution to a "tragedy of the commons" is to privatize the common. That is, give it to someone. This will result in the resource being allocated to its most efficient use (see Coase Theorem).

Lol - so who should own the whole atmosphere?

Nobody. But it's a simple matter to split it up.

Cuius est solum eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos.

[OpenYourEyes]

spy_on("wholecountry");
take_money("wholecountry");

[Biomech]

Well, I'm a libertarian, and have long since crossed the border. I am most assuredly an anarchist.

According to Ayn Rand the only legitimate purposes of government are to protect from without (defensively!!!) and to protect the rights of property and contract. Don't know if that's what you're looking for.

However, if we are to go with the specific wording of your post title, my answer would be based on history and what governments actually do.

1. Establish the perception of legitimacy.
2. Fuck everyone.

When Jefferson said that government is a necessary evil, it is my considered opinion that he was dead wrong. Evil is NOT necessary, even though ever present. Giving it allegiance and power is IN ITSELF an evil act, and should be avoided. Mao was correct. All political power proceeds from the barrel of a gun.

[Kao]

spy_on("wholecountry");
take_money("wholecountry");

Eric Arthur Blair (George Orwell) would be proud.

[Malawi]

People love to talk about market forces solving all problems, but protecting the environment is something that market forces do a very poor job at protecting.  See global warming on a global scale, or overfishing, it's the economic principle of externalities - also referred to as "the tragedy of the commons".

You know how to fix the tragedy of the commons, right?

Well, my memory of economics tells me that the way of fixing the tragedy of the commons would be to build the externalities into the price of whatever is being sold.  In other words, if you were to use gasoline as an example, put a large tax on it to account for the fact that it contributes to global warming.  Over the long run, this will result in a situation where people will drive less, and use smaller cars, thus use less gas. 

So, in this case, the solution is government intervention.  The same idea would apply for many other cases of tragedy of the commons, ie: some species is being overfished?  Declare an area off limits for fishing for a set period of time.  So on and so forth.  I like minimalism in government, but environmental protections like these are regulations that I fully support.

That's a common approach, halfawake, but not the textbook solution. The simple sollution to a "tragedy of the commons" is to privatize the common. That is, give it to someone. This will result in the resource being allocated to its most efficient use (see Coase Theorem).

Lol - so who should own the whole atmosphere?

Nobody. But it's a simple matter to split it up.

Cuius est solum eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos.

Not sure if you get my point. The problem is not in splitting up the atmosphere into ownable chunks, it is to keep whatever you put into the atmosphere inside your dedicated chunk.

If your neighbour pollutes the hell out of his chunk, quite a bit of it will go your way (depending on wind direction etc.)

[myrkul]

People love to talk about market forces solving all problems, but protecting the environment is something that market forces do a very poor job at protecting.  See global warming on a global scale, or overfishing, it's the economic principle of externalities - also referred to as "the tragedy of the commons".

You know how to fix the tragedy of the commons, right?

Well, my memory of economics tells me that the way of fixing the tragedy of the commons would be to build the externalities into the price of whatever is being sold.  In other words, if you were to use gasoline as an example, put a large tax on it to account for the fact that it contributes to global warming.  Over the long run, this will result in a situation where people will drive less, and use smaller cars, thus use less gas. 

So, in this case, the solution is government intervention.  The same idea would apply for many other cases of tragedy of the commons, ie: some species is being overfished?  Declare an area off limits for fishing for a set period of time.  So on and so forth.  I like minimalism in government, but environmental protections like these are regulations that I fully support.

That's a common approach, halfawake, but not the textbook solution. The simple sollution to a "tragedy of the commons" is to privatize the common. That is, give it to someone. This will result in the resource being allocated to its most efficient use (see Coase Theorem).

Lol - so who should own the whole atmosphere?

Nobody. But it's a simple matter to split it up.

Cuius est solum eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos.

Not sure if you get my point. The problem is not in splitting up the atmosphere into ownable chunks, it is to keep whatever you put into the atmosphere inside your dedicated chunk.

If your neighbour pollutes the hell out of his chunk, quite a bit of it will go your way (depending on wind direction etc.)

And then you sue the shit out of him for damages.

[Malawi]

People love to talk about market forces solving all problems, but protecting the environment is something that market forces do a very poor job at protecting.  See global warming on a global scale, or overfishing, it's the economic principle of externalities - also referred to as "the tragedy of the commons".

You know how to fix the tragedy of the commons, right?

Well, my memory of economics tells me that the way of fixing the tragedy of the commons would be to build the externalities into the price of whatever is being sold.  In other words, if you were to use gasoline as an example, put a large tax on it to account for the fact that it contributes to global warming.  Over the long run, this will result in a situation where people will drive less, and use smaller cars, thus use less gas. 

So, in this case, the solution is government intervention.  The same idea would apply for many other cases of tragedy of the commons, ie: some species is being overfished?  Declare an area off limits for fishing for a set period of time.  So on and so forth.  I like minimalism in government, but environmental protections like these are regulations that I fully support.

That's a common approach, halfawake, but not the textbook solution. The simple sollution to a "tragedy of the commons" is to privatize the common. That is, give it to someone. This will result in the resource being allocated to its most efficient use (see Coase Theorem).

Lol - so who should own the whole atmosphere?

Nobody. But it's a simple matter to split it up.

Cuius est solum eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos.

Not sure if you get my point. The problem is not in splitting up the atmosphere into ownable chunks, it is to keep whatever you put into the atmosphere inside your dedicated chunk.

If your neighbour pollutes the hell out of his chunk, quite a bit of it will go your way (depending on wind direction etc.)

And then you sue the shit out of him for damages.

If you know exactly which neighbour it is.
BTW: Another scenario would be something that dissipates very well in small quantities, but the effect is quite bad. Like some sort of poison leaking out.

OR... Some kind of pollution that is hard to detect where it comes from, and most neighbours are polluting small amounts that add up and does damage.

Or maybe some kind of pollution where it's hard to detect the source unless you are close, but someone far away does a lot of it, and his neighbours does not care or his land plot is large and the sources placed in a way that makes it hard to pinpoint the pollution without being at the private property. Not to mention that the pollutant is a part of unpolluted air, only in far less quantity.

[myrkul]

If your neighbour pollutes the hell out of his chunk, quite a bit of it will go your way (depending on wind direction etc.)

And then you sue the shit out of him for damages.

If you know exactly which neighbour it is.

The smoke stack is probably a dead giveaway.

BTW: Another scenario would be something that dissipates very well in small quantities, but the effect is quite bad. Like some sort of poison leaking out.

It could be traced. Just walk toward the higher concentrations.

OR... Some kind of pollution that is hard to detect where it comes from, and most neighbours are polluting small amounts that add up and does damage.

Damage to whom? If most of them are doing it, and suffering damages from it, then they are suffering the damages from their own actions. If you're not doing it, and suffering damages from their actions, sue 'em.

Or maybe some kind of pollution where it's hard to detect the source unless you are close, but someone far away does a lot of it, and his neighbours does not care or his land plot is large and the sources placed in a way that makes it hard to pinpoint the pollution without being at the private property. Not to mention that the pollutant is a part of unpolluted air, only in far less quantity.

Again, it could be traced. Just walk toward the higher concentrations.

[Anon136]

What ever services they monopolized they would turn to shit, so what ever are the 2 least important things you can think of would be my answer. We could keep on some regulators to make sure that toothpick manufacturers are not manufacturing their toothpicks too sharp and maybe those guys who decide what shaped bottles are legal for wine producers to put wine in and what shaped bottles are illegal for wine producers to put wine in. (yes you can go to jail for putting wine in an incorrectly shaped bottle in the US  )

[Pzi4nk]

What ever services they monopolized they would turn to shit, so what ever are the 2 least important things you can think of would be my answer. We could keep on some regulators to make sure that toothpick manufacturers are not manufacturing their toothpicks too sharp and maybe those guys who decide what shaped bottles are legal for wine producers to put wine in and what shaped bottles are illegal for wine producers to put wine in. (yes you can go to jail for putting wine in an incorrectly shaped bottle in the US  )

I agree with you that government is inefficient and largly ineffective, but (noting your response was tongue in cheek) I still think there is a role for government in coordinating activities that are not in any one person's interest and are not profitable enough to attract private enterprise.

[myrkul]

I still think there is a role for government in coordinating activities that are not in any one person's interest and are not profitable enough to attract private enterprise.

In other words, to waste money?

[Elwar]

Hmm...2 is a lot.

[Pzi4nk]

I still think there is a role for government in coordinating activities that are not in any one person's interest and are not profitable enough to attract private enterprise.

In other words, to waste money?

Well...

I think we agree government is wasteful and inefficient. No argument there.

But if we're going to have an honest conversation I don't think a society can exist without some kind of coordinating body.

One example of what I was talking about is roads. No one person or enterprise can justify spending money maintaining urban roads. Highways, yes. You could build a toll road, but in the city many people use them and there has to be easy access on and off. No room for toll booths, etc. It's a public good. But no one person or business gets enough benefit from them to be willing to pay for their maintenance.

That's what I was thinking of.

[Impaler]

To establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

[Anon136]

What ever services they monopolized they would turn to shit, so what ever are the 2 least important things you can think of would be my answer. We could keep on some regulators to make sure that toothpick manufacturers are not manufacturing their toothpicks too sharp and maybe those guys who decide what shaped bottles are legal for wine producers to put wine in and what shaped bottles are illegal for wine producers to put wine in. (yes you can go to jail for putting wine in an incorrectly shaped bottle in the US  )

I agree with you that government is inefficient and largly ineffective, but (noting your response was tongue in cheek) I still think there is a role for government in coordinating activities that are not in any one person's interest and are not profitable enough to attract private enterprise.

Right i believe this is the strongest argument that can be made in favor of government (its sill wrong but it is the best wrong argument imo). What you are saying is that it can be used to solve problems of market failure. These are situations where individual rationality does not translate to group rationality. So imagine a soldier in a battle who calculates that if he abandons the battle it will only reduce his armies chance of victory by 0.1% but will increase his chance of survival from 50% to 99.9%. So he rationally calculates that he should leave the battle. However if everyone makes this same rational calculation than there is a 100% chance that every single one of them will die as the opposing army rampages across the land committing genocide. Supposedly government can be used to solve these sorts of problems.

unfortunately the problem with this idea is that government is even more effected by market failure problems than markets are. check out this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5maguX5x8c for a deeper explanation of how government is effected by market failure problems.

also remember that in a free market there would be incentives for entrepreneurs to solve market failure problems, there would potentially be a great amount of profit to be earned in doing so but so long as government is monopolizing the job of solving market failure problems entrepreneurs are crowded out of the market in solving market failure. So it isnt fair to say that just because an entrepreneur isnt solving x now that it wouldn't be solved by an entrepreneur in the free market.