NationStates Jolt Archive

I've seen a few posters express this resently, so I thought I'd ask how people here feel.

Absolutely not. I doubt it's even possible to count the number of times government has made terrible mistakes with devastating consequences, so it's not any better than the individual. Hell, it's probably worse than individuals because of the power, wealth, and status government can afford individuals.

I've seen a few posters express this resently, so I thought I'd ask how people here feel.

I thought it was obvious that profit-driven big business knows best.

Do you?

You know what's best yourself, if you don't society or the laws of society will teach you. Or you end up like a thief without morals, love or fun on the streets. Maybe when you're 40 you will start to acknowledge you have messed it up for yourself and took lots of people with you in your downfall.

Then you start to read extremist books (written by mostly men with beards), you get to sponsor some ideology nobody really gets and everyone has a different view on.

Finally, you will believe the government knows what's best.

id be surprised to see any serious yes' here as the government is just a few individuals with control over others
I thought it was obvious that profit-driven big business knows best.
have it ever occured to you that 'big business' is not an entity in and of itself, but that it is a collection of individuals each looking after their own self interest, and trying to provide from themselves, working together out of solidarity

I thought it was obvious that profit-driven big business knows best.

Big business isn't a collective entity; it's as diverse as any group of people, with all of them competing against each other to maximize profit. Even within the same sector, businesses aren't a collective entitiy; they may advocate similar reforms or laws, but are ultimately concerned with prevailing over their competition.

Sometimes. They do have a lifetime of experience behind them, however corrupt or idiotic they might be. Generally they make some very bad choices with a spicing of good ones.
Bad- Pig ammendment to the Florida Constitution
Fireworks restriction laws anywhere
Minimum wage law( hooked to inflation)
Patriot Act

Good- ... give me a bit to think

For as pro big governmet as many NSers seem to be, I'm surprised that there aren't more yes replies.

For as pro big governmet as many NSers seem to be, I'm surprised that there aren't more yes replies.

Big government doesn't mean infallible government. It means that the state has certain obligations to its citizens and vice versa.

They should know best, that's what they're paid for :rolleyes:
One thing that honestly irritates me is that most of the time mistakes (accidental or not) go by unpunished...

Depends on the type of government.

The more involvement by the more members of the population, the better the decisions.

So, the government does not always know best, but if half-way democratic it will approach some sort of approximation of what most people want - which makes it better than anything else we have.

So does it know best? Probably not.
Does it know better? Sometimes, yes.

Depends on the type of government.

The more involvement by the more members of the population, the better the decisions.

So, the government does not always know best, but if half-way democratic it will approach some sort of approximation of what most people want - which makes it better than anything else we have.

So does it know best? Probably not.
Does it know better? Sometimes, yes.

The government never knows what's best for itself or it's people.

Only the people know what's best for themselves, and in particular I know what's best for myself.

Depends on the type of government.

The more involvement by the more members of the population, the better the decisions.

So, the government does not always know best, but if half-way democratic it will approach some sort of approximation of what most people want - which makes it better than anything else we have.

So does it know best? Probably not.
Does it know better? Sometimes, yes.
what obtuse logic...

The government never knows what's best for itself or it's people.
You might know that it is best for yourself to start a chemical production company and to pour all your toxic waste down the drain.
But only the government, as representative of the rest of the community, will know that on aggregate, it may be better for you to go without chemicals, and instead have everyone else stay healthy.

You might know that it is best for yourself to start a chemical production company and to pour all your toxic waste down the drain.
But only the government, as representative of the rest of the community, will know that on aggregate, it may be better for you to go without chemicals, and instead have everyone else stay healthy.
your saying that governments arent corrupt? they are simply collections of individuals who look out for themselves like everyone else, the only difference is they arent honest about it:
"im doing whats in the best interest of the people"....my *ss

Well in my country most people are hetro and most people are white and most people are christian. So it could very easilly be argued that it would be democratic to have a white christian nation with laws against homosexuality. The majority is wrong a startling majority of the time. That's the good thing about a constitutional democracy that defends civil rights. To protect against the tyranny of the majority....

what obtuse logic...
Hey, at this point, most governments lack democracy. Republics have the problem that leaders, once elected, are not really held accountable until the next elections.

But the only way that a government can make sound decisions is when it serves as the medium in which individuals can be made aware of the rest of the population, and made to act in a way that maximises welfare.

It's something of a utilitarian idea - but it's the best we have. Markets fail. For a society to work entirely on the basis of the market, there would have to be people who would tend to these failures - thus giving those people the power to act as quasi-governments.

Without some sort of coordinating framework, people can't live together, and can't achieve anything meaningful. Democratic governments are the best means we have to represent the most voices, to do that coordination and at the same time prevent tyranny from getting out of hand.

Anarchism might be nice in theory, but I personally would not want to live in a world without government.

Hey, at this point, most governments lack democracy. Republics have the problem that leaders, once elected, are not really held accountable until the next elections.

But the only way that a government can make sound decisions is when it serves as the medium in which individuals can be made aware of the rest of the population, and made to act in a way that maximises welfare.

It's something of a utilitarian idea - but it's the best we have. Markets fail. For a society to work entirely on the basis of the market, there would have to be people who would tend to these failures - thus giving those people the power to act as quasi-governments.

Without some sort of coordinating framework, people can't live together, and can't achieve anything meaningful. Democratic governments are the best means we have to represent the most voices, to do that coordination and at the same time prevent tyranny from getting out of hand.

Anarchism might be nice in theory, but I personally would not want to live in a world without government.
those of your axiums which arent flawed are at the very least unjustified:
1:'maximizing welfare' is a good thing (i dont believe in equality as a desirable principle, i believe in individuality)
2:'markets fail':i dont get where this is coming from, you must be european
3:"achieving something 'meaningful'" is desirable:
were the pyramids desirable, lots of people died building them, how about the grand canal in china, over a hundred thousand dead (thats just the first time, not the expansions), how about the great wall?....these all seem pretty miserable with lots of death involved to me... whats something meaningful and why do we want it?

Since everything is in such a mess...I'm gonna say no. In fact, they dont know shite.

1:'maximizing welfare' is a good thing (i dont believe in equality as a desirable principle, i believe in individuality)
Who said "maximising welfare" means equality?
There needs to be an environment from which everyone needs to be able to start out and make their own life, according to their wishes. Basic levels of government involvement do no more than create that environment.
I'm most likely to follow Amartya Sen's ideas on that - there needs to equality of opportunity first up. No one can influence where and to whom they are born, yet that is of absolute central importance to the way one is able to live ones life.

2:'markets fail':i dont get where this is coming from, you must be european
See location.
But that's not the point. I study Economics at Uni, so I would hope that I know by now what I'm talking about.
Market Failure is not an invention - it is imperfections that occur because people with rational self-interest will fail to consider things that don't impact them directly.
It can also be simply because people don't act rationally. Keynes wrote a bit about that - and think what you will of his other theories, that part makes sense. Homo Economicus does not exist.

3:"achieving something 'meaningful'" is desirable:
were the pyramids desirable, lots of people died building them, how about the grand canal in china, over a hundred thousand dead (thats just the first time, not the expansions), how about the great wall?....these all seem pretty miserable with lots of death involved to me... whats something meaningful and why do we want it?
Personally, I would say that those are not really desirable. But that's just me.
In a democratic government, people could make the decision that this is desirable, and act accordingly. That's the point of it all.

Because there ultimately is no "right", no "wrong", because everything is relative (and now you know why I disagree with the Austrians), the only thing that can make these decisions are the people who are involved - and a democratic government ideally is no more than a representative of those people.
And in such a case, a rant against a government is just a rant against people who disagree with you. There is no substance to that.

I thought it was obvious that profit-driven big business knows best.

Since when are they mutually exclusive?

At least with busines syou have a choice NOT to do business with them. Try that with government!

So, the government does not always know best, but if half-way democratic it will approach some sort of approximation of what most people want - which makes it better than anything else we have.
.

You make the foolish assumption that what everybody wants is the same as right.

It can also be simply because people don't act rationally. Keynes wrote a bit about that - and think what you will of his other theories, that part makes sense. Homo Economicus does not exist.

Because there ultimately is no "right", no "wrong", because everything is relative (and now you know why I disagree with the Austrians), .
thats not bad actually...coherent at least, which is impressive for anything pro-state (statist would probably be going a little far in describing you).
just 2 points on that one,
first off, thats about the only thing that i will agree with keynes on (good footnote to that one), the only reason is for things like environmental issues...unfortunatly its not possible for the air or oceans to be privatly owned....if it was a different story.
id disagree about the austrians though, they seem to me the only relativists/relationists in economics. austrian economics (unlike keynesian economics) says that nothing has absolute value, only relative (eg 6 eggs > 1 loaf of bread to person A, 6 eggs < 1 loaf of bread to B, so a and b exchange and the relative values of eggs and loafs of bread changes). the major flaw of keynesian economics is that he assumes you can use 6 eggs = 1 loaf of bread in this case for calculations, which is simply not accurate

I may not know what's best for me but I definitely know the government does NOT know what's best for me

You make the foolish assumption that what everybody wants is the same as right.
Well, here's the deal:

Yes, you need an educated populace which is able to make decisions properly for my theory to work.

But then - if you assume that the people are not able to make the right decision (see below for explanation), then a system that places the entire burden of decision-making on them as individuals will likely do even worse, considering that in a democracy, the two different dumb extremes can sometimes cancel each other out.

As for "right" and "wrong" - note how I only use these words to mean the chances of a decision yielding an outcome better than before, measured using criteria set by the people (again, represented by the government for practical reasons).
There is no moral right and wrong.

id disagree about the austrians though, they seem to me the only relativists/relationists in economics.
Perhaps I just had to do with the wrong kind of Austrian so far - namely the type that argues that taxation is theft, and therefore immoral, and like to talk about moral absolutes in that way.

Perhaps I just had to do with the wrong kind of Austrian so far - namely the type that argues that taxation is theft, and therefore immoral, and like to talk about moral absolutes in that way.
haha that was my favorite part...but really theres a lot more too it... some of them are a little bit over the edge though (cough cough hayek). the problem i have with keyne s(and to be honest i havnt studied it too much), is that according to his math, the government paying people to dig holes is good for the economy. (i thin kthis started my love of economics, cuz i was like 'f*ck that' and went to find something that proves him wrong, or do it myself)

haha that was my favorite part...but really theres a lot more too it... some of them are a little bit over the edge though (cough cough hayek). the problem i have with keyne s(and to be honest i havnt studied it too much), is that according to his math, the government paying people to dig holes is good for the economy. (i thin kthis started my love of economics, cuz i was like 'f*ck that' and went to find something that proves him wrong, or do it myself)
Well, the government paying someone results in them having money, and then hopefully spending it.

Here is Chapter 24 of The General Theory (http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/keynes/general-theory/ch24.htm), which is probably the best in the book. He was a good mathematician (and ultimately mathematical models do have their merits in real life), but that was not what it was about.
He was being pedantic sometimes because Hayek at the time had this habit of picking everything apart on minute details, so Keynes went to enormous lengths to define everything mathematically.

Well, the government paying someone results in them having money, and then hopefully spending it.

Here is Chapter 24 of The General Theory (http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/keynes/general-theory/ch24.htm), which is probably the best in the book. He was a good mathematician (and ultimately mathematical models do have their merits in real life), but that was not what it was about.
He was being pedantic sometimes because Hayek at the time had this habit of picking everything apart on minute details, so Keynes went to enormous lengths to define everything mathematically.
i love mathmatics as well...but 1 problem...its absolute. thats the reason keynes' theories dont reflect reality, he says (random object) is worth 2 ounces of gold....well no it never is, and hopefully your being sarcastic on the 'them having money and hopefully spending it' part cuz while were at it why dont we just print money... we can all be rich!!!!

(thx for the link, ill take a looksy a little later)

Do you?

You know what's best yourself, if you don't society or the laws of society will teach you. Or you end up like a thief without morals, love or fun on the streets. Maybe when you're 40 you will start to acknowledge you have messed it up for yourself and took lots of people with you in your downfall.

Then you start to read extremist books (written by mostly men with beards), you get to sponsor some ideology nobody really gets and everyone has a different view on.

Finally, you will believe the government knows what's best.


Lol, what do you have against men with beards? There's nothing wrong with a beard. }=\>>>>>>>

Well, we vote for a government that knows best (or as close to it as possible), don't we?

Well, we vote for a government that knows best (or as close to it as possible), don't we?

I vote for a gavernment that does the least.

i dont vote at all (well not in canadian federal elections) beceause pretty much all the parties are proactive...id vote for the bloc if i could....but im in ontario

So where are all these people who are advocating the ban to same sex marriage, appointment of conservative judges and generally speaking, love the idea of the government regulating the crap out of every aspect of our lives? are they waiting for the day where by they wait at their phone for the government to ring up and say its ok to have a shit!?

no

I can't remember who said it and I'm paraphrasing a little but..

If one individual can't be trusted to govern himself how come a parliament of a few hundred individuals can be trusted to govern millions?

Well, here's the deal:

Yes, you need an educated populace which is able to make decisions properly for my theory to work.

.


Oh, like Germany in the 1930s and 40s.