Maximum role of Government?

[myrkul]

I've made my opinion abundantly clear elsewhere, Now it's your turn!

An explanation or defense of your position would be nice, too.

[bitplane]

Moderate: the Government should control some services, and not others (explain)

On top of laws and regulations the government should control services which are useful to the population in the long term and are not commercially viable, and/or those services which should not be corrupted by commercial interests. For example investments in public transport, health-care, schooling, and even some public broadcasting (with appropriate regulation to avoid bias).

I don't mind paying taxes for these things because I think that they are basic requirements of a civilized society, politicians are maybe not the most honest people but they are certainly far less ruthless than businesspeople who are only loyal to money. Every time I see a politician on TV it's someone talking crap to save face, but every time I see an advert it is as close to a blatant lie as is legally possible.

[AyeYo]

Moderate: the Government should control some services, and not others (explain)

On top of laws and regulations the government should control services which are useful to the population in the long term and are not commercially viable, and/or those services which should not be corrupted by commercial interests. For example investments in public transport, health-care, schooling, and even some public broadcasting (with appropriate regulation to avoid bias).

I don't mind paying taxes for these things because I think that they are basic requirements of a civilized society, politicians are maybe not the most honest people but they are certainly far less ruthless than businesspeople who are only loyal to money. Every time I see a politician on TV it's someone talking crap to save face, but every time I see an advert it is as close to a blatant lie as is legally possible.

This.


Government's job is to step in and do the things that the free market either fails at (utilities, rail, police, military, etc.) or has a conflict of interest in (health care, etc.), as well as to regulate business for the protection of consumers, and to set economic policy to always strive for the happy medium between maximum business growth and maximum benefits to society.

This is based on the simple principle that people must first be alive, healthy, and secure before they can truly be free and that people must be not be in a position of inferiority if they are to make truly voluntary decisions.

[NghtRppr]

All human interactions should be free of initiatory physical violence against people or their property.

[myrkul]

Moderate: the Government should control some services, and not others (explain)

On top of laws and regulations the government should control services which are useful to the population in the long term and are not commercially viable, and/or those services which should not be corrupted by commercial interests. For example investments in [1]public transport, [2]health-care, [3]schooling, and even some [4]public broadcasting (with appropriate regulation to avoid bias).

I don't mind paying taxes for these things because I think that they are basic requirements of a civilized society, politicians are maybe not the most honest people but they are certainly far less ruthless than businesspeople who are only loyal to money. [5]Every time I see a politician on TV it's someone talking crap to save face, but every time I see an advert it is as close to a blatant lie as is legally possible.

This.


Government's job is to step in and do the things that the free market either fails at ([6]utilities, [1]rail, [7]police, military, etc.) or has a conflict of interest in ([2]health care, etc.), as well as to [8]regulate business for the protection of consumers, and to set economic policy to always strive for the happy medium between maximum business growth and maximum benefits to society.

This is based on the simple principle that people must first be alive, healthy, and secure before they can truly be free and that people must be not be in a position of inferiority if they are to make truly voluntary decisions.

Some points:

[1]: Transportation can be run at a profit. Whats more, charging only the people who use it is more fair than charging people who do not use it. If it can not be run at a profit, then it is a waste of resources, and should not be provided.
[2]: Healthcare is wrecked in the US because of government intervention. Before the regulation stepped in, Doctors actually went to peoples houses. Profit driven healthcare can and will provide better healthcare, especially without the AMA's restrictions.
[3]: Government schooling is a joke. It doesn't teach children, it standardizes them.
[4]: Public Broadcasting is just as commercial as private. Watch an hour of PBS and see how many corporate "underwriters" you can spot.
[5]: So, what you're saying is, Politicians lie, and adverts almost lie. 'k.
[6]: Utilities do benefit from single infrastructure, but there's no reason that that single infrastructure must be a monopoly.
[7]: Police and Military are the most easily privatized. Private security firms are already in business.
[8]: Regulation often does not protect customers, but the corporations. Competition is the best protection for the consumer, and increased regulation reduces competition.

[AyeYo]

Using the US as an example of anything that I've advocated for is just one massive strawman.  The US does almost nothing I've advocated for and does not have a functioning democracy.  Try again.

[myrkul]

Using the US as an example of anything that I've advocated for is just one massive strawman.  The US does almost nothing I've advocated for and does not have a functioning democracy.  Try again.

And the examples I did not reference the US on?

[AyeYo]

Using the US as an example of anything that I've advocated for is just one massive strawman.  The US does almost nothing I've advocated for and does not have a functioning democracy.  Try again.

And the examples I did not reference the US on?

Every single one of those referenced the US directly or indirectly.  You didn't have say "US" for your example to be based on the current state of the world, something I never advocated for.

[bitplane]

[1]: Transportation can be run at a profit. Whats more, charging only the people who use it is more fair than charging people who do not use it. If it can not be run at a profit, then it is a waste of resources, and should not be provided.

So if a corporation owned the streets and all streets and pavements were pay-as-you-drive / pay-as-you-walk, this would be better than paying taxes?

[2]: Healthcare is wrecked in the US because of government intervention. Before the regulation stepped in, Doctors actually went to peoples houses. Profit driven healthcare can and will provide better healthcare, especially without the AMA's restrictions.

I live in the UK and wouldn't want to give up our national health service. The main thing is that I can break my leg and it won't bankrupt me, I'm automatically insured, I can take more risks, take my health for granted and not give a shit about losing my job.

[3]: Government schooling is a joke. It doesn't teach children, it standardizes them.

School is about standardizing children; get the kids in society up to a standard level where they can compete in the market. Political and philosophical education is the responsibility of the parents, not the state.

[4]: Public Broadcasting is just as commercial as private. Watch an hour of PBS and see how many corporate "underwriters" you can spot.

The BBC isn't, no adverts on any TV or radio by law, no political bias either. The news is incredibly balanced compared to American news, it's rivalled only by Al Jazeera.

[5]: So, what you're saying is, Politicians lie, and adverts almost lie. 'k.

Politicians tend to dodge questions, but on the whole they represent their constituency. Adverts lie to you for financial gain, they aren't representing people with morals but a form of technology used to collect money.

[6]: Utilities do benefit from single infrastructure, but there's no reason that that single infrastructure must be a monopoly.

Since our water, gas, electricity were privatized the end-user has ended up paying a lot more. I agree with this in principle, but it seemed like our government got a much better deal for the people when they were in control.

[7]: Police and Military are the most easily privatized. Private security firms are already in business.

A private police force sounds ludicrous to me, police do much more than just uphold the law (if they don't, you're doing it wrong). Replacing the military with mercenaries is laughable too, who would they be loyal to?

[8]: Regulation often does not protect customers, but the corporations. Competition is the best protection for the consumer, and increased regulation reduces competition.

It's important to find a balance between what's good for individuals and what's good for the economy, different political ideologies disagree on what to regulate and how, but the general consensus across the board is that regulation is needed to protect both.

[myrkul]

Every single one of those referenced the US directly or indirectly.  You didn't have say "US" for your example to be based on the current state of the world, something I never advocated for.

Exactly the type of Handwaving I've come to expect from you.

[1]: Transportation can be run at a profit. Whats more, charging only the people who use it is more fair than charging people who do not use it. If it can not be run at a profit, then it is a waste of resources, and should not be provided.

So if a corporation owned the streets and all streets and pavements were pay-as-you-drive / pay-as-you-walk, this would be better than paying taxes?

Yes. That said, There's no need for that. If Taco Bell, for instance has their logo on every third paving stone, you can bet the other two will be maintained, too. That's just one option, though.

[2]: Healthcare is wrecked in the US because of government intervention. Before the regulation stepped in, Doctors actually went to peoples houses. Profit driven healthcare can and will provide better healthcare, especially without the AMA's restrictions.

I live in the UK and wouldn't want to give up our national health service. The main thing is that I can break my leg and it won't bankrupt me, I'm automatically insured, I can take more risks, take my health for granted and not give a shit about losing my job.

Thanks for making my point...

[3]: Government schooling is a joke. It doesn't teach children, it standardizes them.

School is about standardizing children; get the kids in society up to a standard level where they can compete in the market. Political and philosophical education is the responsibility of the parents, not the state.

All education is ultimately the responsibility of the Parent.

[4]: Public Broadcasting is just as commercial as private. Watch an hour of PBS and see how many corporate "underwriters" you can spot.

The BBC isn't, no adverts on any TV or radio by law, no political bias either. The news is incredibly balanced compared to American news, it's rivalled only by Al Jazeera.

Here, I'll grant you the point. The BBC is some good TV.

[5]: So, what you're saying is, Politicians lie, and adverts almost lie. 'k.

Politicians tend to dodge questions, but on the whole they represent their constituency. Adverts lie to you for financial gain, they aren't representing people with morals but a form of technology used to collect money.

Overall, I'd trust those who are loyal only to money before those loyal only to power.

[6]: Utilities do benefit from single infrastructure, but there's no reason that that single infrastructure must be a monopoly.

Since our water, gas, electricity were privatized the end-user has ended up paying a lot more. I agree with this in principle, but it seemed like our government got a much better deal for the people when they were in control.

I'm not familiar with UK privatization of Utilities, and If you'd provide a link, I'd greatly appreciate it. I can tel you what "Privatization" usually means over here though: The government grants a monopoly to a private company, and then the politicians scream about how privatization doesn't work.

[7]: Police and Military are the most easily privatized. Private security firms are already in business.

A private police force sounds ludicrous to me, police do much more than just uphold the law (if they don't, you're doing it wrong). Replacing the military with mercenaries is laughable too, who would they be loyal to?

Their employers, of course. but ultimately, to themselves. This means that War is less likely, for one simple reason: 'You're not paying me enough to get killed.'

[8]: Regulation often does not protect customers, but the corporations. Competition is the best protection for the consumer, and increased regulation reduces competition.

It's important to find a balance between what's good for individuals and what's good for the economy, different political ideologies disagree on what to regulate and how, but the general consensus across the board is that regulation is needed to protect both.

The individual is the economy. the Market is the sum of all voluntary human actions.

[ascent]

The individual is the economy. the Market is the sum of all voluntary human actions.

Kind of like cancer cells, then?

[myrkul]

The individual is the economy. the Market is the sum of all voluntary human actions.

Kind of like cancer cells, then?

Say what now?

[ascent]

Say what now?

Sorry. I just keep hearing how economies run amok are so great around here. Problem is, they aren't really forward thinking, amd there are cancerous elements in them which harm the system. In medicine, external influences are applied to restrain these cancerous cells.

[myrkul]

Say what now?

Sorry. I just keep hearing how economies run amok are so great around here. Problem is, they aren't really forward thinking, amd there are cancerous elements in them which harm the system. In medicine, external influences are applied to restrain these cancerous cells.

Then excuse my language, but what in the hell are you doing in an economy that cannot be regulated?

[ascent]

Then excuse my language, but what in the hell are you doing in an economy that cannot be regulated?

Clarify, please.

[myrkul]

Then excuse my language, but what in the hell are you doing in an economy that cannot be regulated?

Clarify, please.

Did you forget what site you're on? If you think Bitcoins can be regulated, let me know how.

[ascent]

Did you forget what site you're on? If you think Bitcoins can be regulated, let me know how.

Bitcoins are not an economy. At best, they're a financial instrument. An economy is a much greater thing, which includes agents, instruments, resources, and waste, and often exists within a closed system.

[MoonShadow]

[4]: Public Broadcasting is just as commercial as private. Watch an hour of PBS and see how many corporate "underwriters" you can spot.

The BBC isn't, no adverts on any TV or radio by law, no political bias either. The news is incredibly balanced compared to American news, it's rivalled only by Al Jazeera.

Everyone has a bias, including those who make a valid effort to suppress their own biases in reporting.  To forget that opens you up for the effects of propoganda as well as accidental influences.

[myrkul]

Did you forget what site you're on? If you think Bitcoins can be regulated, let me know how.

Bitcoins are not an economy. At best, they're a financial instrument. An economy is a much greater thing, which includes agents, instruments, resources, and waste, and often exists within a closed system.

And the economy which uses bitcoins as its financial instrument cannot be regulated.

[ascent]

And the economy which uses bitcoins as its financial instrument cannot be regulated.

It sure as hell can be. Use your imagination.