Governments. A simple question.

Post Reply New Topic

I think we need governments, but they occasionally need to be "rebooted".

government is armed men with intent to do harm to the rest of us.

Umm, actually what they did in the USSR seems alot like this, everything was 'the government'. And they were the first in space, first man in space, first just-about-everything in space (except the moon), they had the MIR spacestation etc etc. They did alot of stuff that is not acknowledged by the west (or forgotten due to western propaganda). Modern US Lockheed-Martin rockets use 40 year old engines developed in the USSR (they aquired them a coupple of years ago)!
For that matter the US did a similar thing with getting to the moon, the government decided they wanted to achieve that goal and then put everything into doing it, and then they did... It wasn't something an individual just did.

You're taking these events and interpreting them to fit your argument.

Yes, no individual alone did it. Whats your point?

Basically, what you just argued is that libertarianism means everyone will work alone. Not true in the least. They'll be provided better opportunities to start a business (current laws make it extremely difficult to startup/compete (convenient that the big companies support those laws)). Once they start a business and earned some money, they'll need to hire people. They DO NOT work alone.

The Government, in your example, can easily be replaced by a "company" that has its own funding. Bill Gates started either alone or with a few people and look, he now employs thousands. No Government help for him, just the market.

Right now, there is a prize of like 10 million for an aerospace race (making some form of plane). Many teams are competing. This model, this competition model for the 10 million dollar prize, this is how libertarianism works. There is an opportunity and if you/your team can make something, you'll win 10 million and probably be able to start your own business. In libertarianism, you have much more opportunity.

The thing is, people, in a libertarian state, will hope to start up business to make money, which in turn, creates employment, creates more competition for both the company AND employees, and creates products you and me may enjoy. How you are interpreting libertarianism is incorrect. The competition between the U.S. and U.S.S.R. was competitive - to be the first. You don't need a nation or government to be the "first" at something. First car was made by an individual, first motorcycle, first plane, pretty much a lot of firsts by people who wanted money, were passionate of an idea, etc. Thomas Edison invented a ton of s**t, yet, why? He wasn't paid by the government, he just wanted to continuously invent. We use ALL his inventions today and their impact was huge. Again, he was able to be an individual and the outcome was everyone benefitted.

The USSR/Russia is a hole, right now, so saying their space race was amazing is a bit flawed. Only a handful of people were associated with that, the rest were just as piss poor as they normally were. So what? We got into space? It didn't fix the poverty experienced in these countries. And yes, the U.S. and U.S.S.R. poured a lot of money into that but you're forgetting that this was during a "cold war" which is associated with "governments" interacting with other "governments." There was a huge "fear" element that ALSO contributed to this race. Why do you think the space race is over?

Money and self interest are not the only motivators - fear is a terrific one and your argument more supports the idea of using fear/war to progress society then "peace and drive." Perhaps discuss of the achievements made during WW2 - War progresses society EXTREMELY quickly. Problem is, you need a state of constant war/fear to achieve that

As much as I hate the government, humanity would be f**ked without it. I'm not happy with the government, but some form of structure is unfortunately required, otherwise the strong would destroy the weak and who's to stop the strongest from destroying everything?

Explain

I just read the beginning of the thread and noticed that you meant, 'extremely limited government' and not literallyno government.

Thus my post is void, I should have read the whole thread first, but I was feeling lazy.

I figured that would be the confusion. Though, for that, I would have made the thread called "Do we need rules in society?"

Hello,
Corvus, you have asked one of the oldest and most difficult questions in human history. A long chain of idealists and cynics alike have attempted to answer it. These answers have sometimes led to freedom, sometimes to oppression, and sometimes to industrial-scale murder of the very people the system was written to serve.

There is no easy answer to this question, but I can point anyone who feels confused in the direction of some good starting places:

This is a fantastic read. Read it three times. It's that deep. And at least that important for understanding what a functional government must be like.
Steven Pinker - The Blank Slate: The modern denial of human nature

Anubis, you prompted me to post something that I've been working on for a few weeks now (but have thinking about for much lonnger). I've been developing this idea for how to fix some things and prepare for technologically-induced emergencies that haven't yet occured, but will occur very soon. This is also meant to be a scientifically literate world-view that aims to treat people all fairly (equallity under the law), and is meant to make life as comfortable and productive as possible for people who are good to each other. I have posted this document in a new thread called:
"Politics, Philosophy, and Religion" ---> "Welcome to Earth: Government and Ethics in the 21st century"

I've decided to post this in a forum full of aspies because I think people like us might be in a better disposition to think about ethics rather than form knee-jerk emotional reactions to problems of an unsolvable ethical nature. It is also my hope that there are enough logic-driven minds out there to rip my ideas apart and help me refine them. If anyone feels inclined to contribute to what I have written, please send to my e-mail addy (given in the doc) or post it to this forum so that it can be debated.

All well-thought-out commentary will be carefully considered. I will read every post.

Please help and issue feedback. I cannot do these things alone. And they will never get done if they aren't in the collective unconscious in a unified form.

I can get along just fine, but if I have a neighbor, government forms. It does not limit my economic ability. Yes, we agree that roads and schools are needed. I may not run a truck, or leave the house, but UPS drops things at my door. I may have no children, but educated people are better neighbors.

When someone steals my chickens, should I kill them? What shall we do about that army marching toward us, and people who drink the water from the town well are dying.

Who will study all the soils and advise farmers. Who will protect us from goods being dumped here, surrplus production which kills local industry.

Government has many roles, in any system. It should be nothing but the framework in which we live, but I have heard some unreasonable demands being made. And some equally unreasonable objections. We do not put young women with a child on welfare because she wants it, we have a commen interest in seeing that child growup, and become productive. Welfare, health care, education, is much cheaper than arrest, trial, prison, not counting the social damage.

None of this stopped Bill Gates. There is no wall, it is up to the person to make their own way, and when to many thing government is all, it gets bent out of shape. So far it has been self righting.

"My country right or wrong, if right, to be kept right, if wrong, to be corrected."

We should be able to vote for individual issues instead of senators.

For example we could vote for Bushes views of family values, but against his war on terror.

The problem of voting in senators is you have to take the good with the bad. It is much like the case of Object Oriented Development; you have to initials objects with methods and functionality that you don’t need just to access the ones that you don’t. thus creating bloatware.

And yes I think Object Oriented Programming is vastly overrated.

This was the response I was looking for as it 'shows' a TON of "problems" the government 'fixes' but lets analyze it from a different perspective of open market and freedom/responsibility:



Law Enforcement exists. Law, Military, and high court are the purposes of a government. Other bans and services are more "control" then "observation" which is what these things should be. Law should 'observe' until 'law' is broken. Hell, they want to ban DRINKING while driving and I'm not talking about alcohol, I'm talking a water bottle, etc. THATS not observation.



Military still exists. Volunteer at YOUR will. Your INDEPENDENT choice to fight in a war. Nothing should prevent that. As well, any invaders on your land are breaking 'freedom' laws. Nothing changes here.



In Canada, Ontario specifically, people DID die. Funny, it was run by the government. The government doesn't know everything. They are made up of lazy, slobby people like everyone else.



Farmers can? How about they further their education? If they don't, THEY can pay for it, themselves. I see an opportunity for a business in 'agriculture' for an entrepreneur. He can charge farmers for soil assessment. This is not only a business opportunity, but if 2 different people started a business like this, we'd have competition and, shockingly, a price battle. Governments are "monopolies" and you pay them whatever they say it costs.



Whats being dumped where? Isn't it illegal to dump things now? Law still exists.



Do you donate tons of money, weekly, to all sorts of charities? Why or why not? What about those in Darfur? They have WAY worse conditions. Go tell them you chose to give to a 15 year old girl, who got pregnant, because you felt bad for them but due to geographical convenience, you decided to help them instead. How come you can pick and choose who needs help and who doesnt? Seems prejudice to me (which is the argument made by libertarians as I'm forced to help those I think shouldn't receive any or should be last on the list). Its like donating an 'organ.' The ones who REALLY need it should get it first, but, instead, we hand it over to pregnant girls and people who are lazy/bad decision makers (I'm generalizing but this type of system allows mooching of all kinds which is a problem in itself) simply because they are CANADIAN (in my country) and not HUMAN.

'Pregnant, 15 year old girl' comes a little bit in last place, here, in my opinion. Her family let her be herself and this is the thanks they give society. Another mouth to feed.



Places in the U.S., Japan, and Austrialia are drastically changing OR ridding of welfare as the current system is flawed. Handing out money is simply a 'hand out.' While you may think 'what about those who can't work' I think 'what about those who can? Who enforces they find work? And those who have difficulties, be it mental or physical, why isnt the system (welfare, unemployment) setup to help them find work?' Solution? Charity services/employment services that focus SOLELY on these types of people. There is work for even the most 'brain-dead' or 'unskilled' worker out there. Hell, come to Calgary and find me a company NOT looking for employment. Its actually considered a "crisis" here. McDonalds suggests you can work whenever you want.



Up to the person? Minimum wage establishes a persons "worth" before the person has even started working - thats not making their own way, thats stepping into an existing system and 'dealing with it.' How about starting a business? Many 'laws' make it VERY difficult to setup a business to compete. Ironic those large companies pay politicians and somehow get these laws that favor them (equality issues, anyone?). Make their own way, yet, here you are suggesting the government do many things for you. Do you want people to make their own way or for the government to pave a path for you that we can all follow and pay for even though many do not want to? You can't have both - every bill that passes creates a prejudice towards those who opposed it. EVERY bill. People cannot understand this but here we are, forcing people to live a life.

I'm shocked so many aspies are for a 'system' when they, themselves, would hate being controlled. Just because we aren't being slaughtered by our governments doesn't mean they do not have utter control over your life. You're dependent on them, stuck on the idea that "WE NEED 'THEM.'"