NationStates Jolt Archive

J-E-S-U-S
F-U-C-K-I-N-G
C-H-R-I-S-T
I send my fiancee a birthday present (to Malaysia) and it is confiscated by corrupt customs officers, who will demand a bribe before releasing it, and probably take some of the goods within (like they usually do).

The Australian department of foriegn affairs and trade has given me one week to collect and supply all of my payslips from my 3 different occasionally concurrent jobs over the past 3 months, lest they proccess my fiancee's visa application without them. (classifying me as unemployed, and thus nullify all of my effort in working 2 jobs simultaneously).

John Howard is putting chaplains in public schools, I am getting greif for not filing a tax return (how the fuck was I supposed to know? Nobody told me anything. I don't even know what it is, where to file it, or what to file. Aren't they supposed to teach you stuff like this at school? No, that would be to applicable to reality).

A bunch of men in uniforms, presumably armed, seem to disagree that my fiancee and i should be allowed to live together. Pension payments have been dissolved and replaced by super. The post office isn't open on the weekend. I face an extortionist fee for anything regarding the immigration of my fiancee, because some schmuck in the treasury worked out that immigrants have a very fucking inelastic demand when it comes to leaving their corrupted southeast asian shitholes. Speaking of which, my fiancee can't go a day without having to bribe some official or suffer some state-sponsored discrimination because she isn't muslim and happens to have ancestors from mainland china five generations back (as opposed to 15 or 20, damn hypocritical Malays).In fact, now that I think of it, my fiancee is only my fiancee, because the government wasn't happy with her just being my partner.

So the question I find myself asking is "What does the government do for me?" or "What does my fiancee's government do for her?". Seriously. In what way would my life be worse of without this towering mound of red tape and buereaucrats I call 'boss' overhead? It truly seems that they exist only to sustain their existence. What little they put back into the community is porrly co-ordinated, inneffectual, and usually in conflict with some other policy of their own making.
[/futility and impotence]

As you can see, I am feeling quite anarchistic today. As such, I challenge you to come up with something the government provides me, that I need. In what way am I better off with a government than without one?

The only time the government is useful is when it shuts the fuck up, and only spends the tax payer money on productive endeavours like healthcare and public education. The government is otherwise useless. There is too much corruption for it to work.

I am getting greif for not filing a tax return (how the fuck was I supposed to know? Nobody told me anything. I don't even know what it is, where to file it, or what to file. Aren't they supposed to teach you stuff like this at school? No, that would be to applicable to reality).

Well, your other points aside; this is certainly in your best interest. It's relatively simple to figure out yourself and you can do it over the internet.

Go here: http://www.ato.gov.au/etax/

If you do it now you probably will still get most of your rebate back, which could be a couple of hundred dollars. I did mine a week late and they didn't penalise me.

And yes, this is stuff they really should teach in schools.

Tell me about it. Though education and healthcare is something that can be done perfectly well privately (better actually). The only thing I think the government should bother doing is ensuring the lower echelons of society have access to a minimum level of services, not by providing them, but by subsidising them, and by investing in social capital.

That being said, I have not yet seen a government which can effectively do this. Also note the complete lack of response in justification of the usefulness of the state. Kinda carries some implications.

Well, your other points aside; this is certainly in your best interest. It's relatively simple to figure out yourself and you can do it over the internet.

Go here: http://www.ato.gov.au/etax/

If you do it now you probably will still get most of your rebate back, which could be a couple of hundred dollars. I did mine a week late and they didn't penalise me.

And yes, this is stuff they really should teach in schools.
Hey, thanks Kanabia. I actually wouldn't have done it if you didn't give me this link. Really, I was completely stumped. You may have just saved me an auditing :)

Hey, thanks Kanabia. I actually wouldn't have done it if you didn't give me this link. Really, I was completely stumped. You may have just saved me an auditing :)

No problem. :)

Tell me about it. Though education and healthcare is something that can be done perfectly well privately (better actually).
Which is why nationalised healthcare and education routinely match or beat privatised healthcare and education.

Even corrupt governments can be pretty good at reducing crime, maintaining order, and promoting trade. Even bad governments can build roads to remote areas and house prisoners.

Tell me about it. Though education and healthcare is something that can be done perfectly well privately (better actually). The only thing I think the government should bother doing is ensuring the lower echelons of society have access to a minimum level of services, not by providing them, but by subsidising them, and by investing in social capital.

That being said, I have not yet seen a government which can effectively do this. Also note the complete lack of response in justification of the usefulness of the state. Kinda carries some implications.
Katganistan posted a study a few weeks back that shows that the bolded opinion above is factually incorrect.

Welcome to Libertarianism, enjoy your stay.

Katganistan posted a study a few weeks back that shows that the bolded opinion above is factually incorrect.

I don't know what Kat posted, but I have to agree. It is very very incorrect from what I have seen.

The government provides a systematic network of roads, education, police protection, armies, etc., which are useful.

With that said, I'm not sure what the use of the state is...

See the movie "Life of Brian," where the rebels list what the Romans have done for them ;)

If there were no government, we'd have nothing to rebel against.

Even corrupt governments can be pretty good at reducing crime, maintaining order, and promoting trade. Even bad governments can build roads to remote areas and house prisoners.
Any better than private firms?

Katganistan posted a study a few weeks back that shows that the bolded opinion above is factually incorrect.
Good to know, where? (as in where do public schools/hospitals outperform private ones?). I was just speaking from experience (in regard to the education), as I have studied at 10 public schools, and 2 private. The public schools have good people, shit resources, shit community support, and one thing they do well. The private schools have shit people, awesome resources, top community support, and one thing they suck at.

The question is, do you want to bloat the government further so they can run decent schools, or just outsource it. Why go via the government? Just pay less (or no) tax, and pay the schools directly. The schools suddenly have to impress the community to get funds, rather than harasss the education minister. Poor people don't need their own schools paid for by the government, they need money to go to a good one. Argh.

Welcome to Libertarianism, enjoy your stay.

I'm all for Libertarianism; as if that wasn't obvious by my siggie!!! ;)
Education...Not Regulation!!!
Less Government = Best Government!!!

Welcome to Libertarianism, enjoy your stay.
I am a centrist when it comes to politics, but I enthusiastically expect society to end up with Anarcho-capitalism. That is to say, I am not an Anarchist per se, so much as I believe that is where we are heading, and have come to terms with it.

The government provides a systematic network of roads, education, police protection, armies, etc., which are useful.

With that said, I'm not sure what the use of the state is...

bah, all of that could be done more efficiently by private firms. Plus I don't use any of that shit.

Which is why nationalised healthcare and education routinely match or beat privatised healthcare and education.
While I'm not sure I entirely disagree with, consider that when governments act for all the people, they essentially do so as a monopoly. This can have two effects, especially in health care. First, it pushes up prices in other countries without monopolies for health purchases. I would be interested to see if health care was still cheaper overall if every country was trying to form a monopoly over health purchases. Second, it reduces the quantities produced, which is certainly evident in Canada with the shortage of doctors, hospital beds, etc.

I'd say the jury is still out on whether public is better than private, but for now I would stick with public for the political reasons if nothing else.

J-E-S-U-S
F-U-C-K-I-N-G
C-H-R-I-S-T
I send my fiancee a birthday present (to Malaysia) and it is confiscated by corrupt customs officers, who will demand a bribe before releasing it, and probably take some of the goods within (like they usually do).

The Australian department of foriegn affairs and trade has given me one week to collect and supply all of my payslips from my 3 different occasionally concurrent jobs over the past 3 months, lest they proccess my fiancee's visa application without them. (classifying me as unemployed, and thus nullify all of my effort in working 2 jobs simultaneously).

John Howard is putting chaplains in public schools, I am getting greif for not filing a tax return (how the fuck was I supposed to know? Nobody told me anything. I don't even know what it is, where to file it, or what to file. Aren't they supposed to teach you stuff like this at school? No, that would be to applicable to reality).

A bunch of men in uniforms, presumably armed, seem to disagree that my fiancee and i should be allowed to live together. Pension payments have been dissolved and replaced by super. The post office isn't open on the weekend. I face an extortionist fee for anything regarding the immigration of my fiancee, because some schmuck in the treasury worked out that immigrants have a very fucking inelastic demand when it comes to leaving their corrupted southeast asian shitholes. Speaking of which, my fiancee can't go a day without having to bribe some official or suffer some state-sponsored discrimination because she isn't muslim and happens to have ancestors from mainland china five generations back (as opposed to 15 or 20, damn hypocritical Malays).In fact, now that I think of it, my fiancee is only my fiancee, because the government wasn't happy with her just being my partner.

So the question I find myself asking is "What does the government do for me?" or "What does my fiancee's government do for her?". Seriously. In what way would my life be worse of without this towering mound of red tape and buereaucrats I call 'boss' overhead? It truly seems that they exist only to sustain their existence. What little they put back into the community is porrly co-ordinated, inneffectual, and usually in conflict with some other policy of their own making.
[/futility and impotence]

As you can see, I am feeling quite anarchistic today. As such, I challenge you to come up with something the government provides me, that I need. In what way am I better off with a government than without one?

Three points:

1. The government are pretty crap.
2. The government are corrupt.
3. If we didn't have the government, there'd probably be lots more dead people from house fires, floods, etc, due to no control over the funding of the emergency services, and other matters.

Oh and ask your local library where you can find out the stuff you want to find out (eg. about a tax return).

As you can see, I am feeling quite anarchistic today. As such, I challenge you to come up with something the government provides me, that I need. In what way am I better off with a government than without one?
Education.

Any better than private firms?

Yes.Because private firms are often faceless corporations hungry for me.Private health care is a joke,it's so ridiculously expensive that no-one can afford.I know the NHS is in a shambolic state,but I'd prefer that to BUPA or another private health care firm.

bah, all of that could be done more efficiently by private firms. Plus I don't use any of that shit.

You don't use roads?
You'd rather not have the police stop crime?Next time you get robbed,I hope you don't call the police.Otherwise,your a hypocrite.

Governments tend to be useful when they're not corrupt, which nowadays is sorta impossible to find...

Good to know, where? (as in where do public schools/hospitals outperform private ones?). I was just speaking from experience (in regard to the education), as I have studied at 10 public schools, and 2 private. The public schools have good people, shit resources, shit community support, and one thing they do well. The private schools have shit people, awesome resources, top community support, and one thing they suck at.

The question is, do you want to bloat the government further so they can run decent schools, or just outsource it. Why go via the government? Just pay less (or no) tax, and pay the schools directly. The schools suddenly have to impress the community to get funds, rather than harasss the education minister. Poor people don't need their own schools paid for by the government, they need money to go to a good one. Argh.

And starting up privately funded schools will make poor people automatically rich?
No.That is wrong.
And anyway,my school is free.It has some of the top grades in the area.There's a private school in the next town,we beat them pretty soundly every year.

Three points:

1. The government are pretty crap.
2. The government are corrupt.
3. If we didn't have the government, there'd probably be lots more dead people from house fires, floods, etc, due to no control over the funding of the emergency services, and other matters.

Oh and ask your local library where you can find out the stuff you want to find out (eg. about a tax return).

I don't know! The government didn't do so hot when it came to Katrina response! The majority of the rescue efforts in the aftermath of that disaster were pulled off by the citizens; no government around!

I don't know! The government didn't do so hot when it came to Katrina response! The majority of the rescue efforts in the aftermath of that disaster were pulled off by the citizens; no government around!
Yeah but that's because the government agency--which had worked exceedingly well in the 90s under a guy who knew what the fuck he was doing (James Lee Witt)--had been staffed with political cronies who were inept and incompetent. But then again, what do you expect from a government run by people who claim government can't run anything well? It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Three points:

1. The government are pretty crap.
2. The government are corrupt.
3. If we didn't have the government, there'd probably be lots more dead people from house fires, floods, etc, due to no control over the funding of the emergency services, and other matters.

Oh and ask your local library where you can find out the stuff you want to find out (eg. about a tax return).
1. I agree
2. Again, agreement.
3. Not if there were private emergency services to which the public subscribes.

And it's cool, Kanabia fixed me up ;)

Education.

Private education is fine.

You don't use roads?
You'd rather not have the police stop crime?Next time you get robbed,I hope you don't call the police.Otherwise,your a hypocrite.
I don't have a car. I wouldn't need the police if there were private security/law enforcement/emergence firms. It is a little complicated, but the whole system can be privatised within a freemarket easily enough.

The point is the government doesn't actually provide a service which only the government can exclusively provide. As such, they cannot justify the self-perpetuating stranglehold on power they grant themselves.

Governments tend to be useful when they're not corrupt, which nowadays is sorta impossible to find...
Nowadays?

And starting up privately funded schools will make poor people automatically rich?
No.That is wrong.
And anyway,my school is free.It has some of the top grades in the area.There's a private school in the next town,we beat them pretty soundly every year.
No, I am suggesting the government spend more money and time on combatting social injustices and poverty, rather than attempting to run a bloated buereaucracy which runs everything. I'd like to see a government whose only purpose was to issue welfare, and take logical, target based social capital initiatives. Plus, if there is more private enterprise, there is more tax revenue, in which to spend equalising the social scale.

Yeah but that's because the government agency--which had worked exceedingly well in the 90s under a guy who knew what the fuck he was doing (James Lee Witt)--had been staffed with political cronies who were inept and incompetent. But then again, what do you expect from a government run by people who claim government can't run anything well? It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.Yes, but why should the government even have to bother taking care of this kind of shit? Why not just have private emergency firms, which recieve contracts from the government to respond to shit like Katrina?

Government is only useful when it does what it does best-killing, destroying, and restraining evil. Anything else isn't what it's supposed to do, it's unconstitutional. Government only exists to protect it's citizens and kill those who would threaten them or it.

Government is only useful when it does what it does best-killing, destroying, and restraining evil. Anything else isn't what it's supposed to do, it's unconstitutional. Government only exists to protect it's citizens and kill those who would threaten them or it.
See, I'd say the opposite. The government should only be concerned with maintaining the welfare of all of it's citizens (mainly by social work). All of the killing and maiming should be outsourced to private killing firms (if it must be done).

Yes, but why should the government even have to bother taking care of this kind of shit? Why not just have private emergency firms, which recieve contracts from the government to respond to shit like Katrina?Because the private emergency firms will price gouge the government.

In what way am I better off with a government than without one?

Someone always has the power. With a government you can have a say in how that power is used/contained.

Who better to hold that power? McDonalds?

Because the private emergency firms will price gouge the government.
Doesn't that assume there is a monopoly? If you had competing emergency firms, isn't it reasonable the price would be forced down as they tried to fight for market share?

*shrugs*

I'm not prepared to give up the fire department on the chance that a private firm would see saving my house as profitable, but the economics of it are certainly interesting.

What seems to be forgotten in all these discussions is that, ostensibly, governments should (operative right there) be for the people by the people.

Part of why we Canadians take so much pride in our healthcare system is that it's a communal effort through the government to provide some of the most essential and basic services any human can want/need. We, as a country, have decided that these services are so fundamental that we should provide them to every citizen in one massive effort.

It is not a perfect system. There are still too many things not covered by healthcare that can be pretty basic healtcare needs. For me it is the physiotherapy I receive for an accident I had a few years ago. Without the physio my quality of life is cut in half, and even with it there are days I lose my appetite from pain. In that respect I think we can continue to improve upon the services the government delivers in order to better match the value we place on having a universal healthcare system.

Having travelled and lived in South Africa for a short time, I can relate the experience of these basic services being provided by the market versus government.

The problems in this country are far too deep and far too complex to even begin to try to describe them. I had written a couple paragraphs but realized that for every point I wanted to make I needed to make a dozen more premises qualifying why and how. Given that I will just relate the final outcome.

Basically what you have is a private delivery of many basic services such as security and healthcare. What you see is a shattering of any national community or even society. The rich (I was rich when I was there) have access to all these services that they had to pay for, the same we get here in Canada when we pay our taxes. The poor got whatever services that were publically funded.

When the upper classes choose to contribute to private entities to get their services (in this case they really had no other choice to get quality) they also are making a choice to support private over public. You make a choice to not participate in the common weal and the common good. How can one expect there to be community in a society that has fragmented along economic lines? Instead you get economically-driven communities and a quite clear stratification of society, much worse than what we in the West already experience.

While I myself do not believe in the nation-state model, I also believe socities organized along the lines I have described above are incredibly unjust, incredibly inefficient at the end of the day, and incredibly destructive to the human esprit.

There are more ramifications to the decision of public vs. private than mere economic concerns of service providing. These choices reflect values, priorities, and indeed even a belief about the basic core of humanity.

Doesn't that assume there is a monopoly? If you had competing emergency firms, isn't it reasonable the price would be forced down as they tried to fight for market share?

*shrugs*

I'm not prepared to give up the fire department on the chance that a private firm would see saving my house as profitable, but the economics of it are certainly interesting.No, because they wouldn't be fighting in that way. They'd be bribing...er...contributing to politicians' campaigns in exchange for the contracts. The only real issue would be to contribute to the most effective politician(s) and then make up for their losses with the contract.