NationStates Jolt Archive

In your opinion, what should your government do for you? Should it dictate your lifestyle? Your religion? Should it just get out of the way? Maybe you think that it should pay your rent when you don't want to work? Post your views here, and please, be respectful of others' views and if you disagree have a reasoned debate on the differences, not a childish outburst.

Crimean Republic:

The government should defend the homeland, provide infrastructure, levy taxes to pay for said infrastructure and defense, and last but not least, get the hell out of my personal life and my business.

your turn...:)

The government should do the following:

1. Stop us from involuntarily killing/hurting each other, but not ourselves.
2. Provide defense from other, crackpot governments.
3. Leave everything that can be done better by a private citizen or organization, done be said citizen or organization.

If it does anything more, it's not doing it's job. If it does anything less, it's not a government.:)

Should it dictate your lifestyle?

No.

Your religion?

No.

Should it just get out of the way?

For the most part.

Maybe you think that it should pay your rent when you don't want to work?

No, but I have no problem with it providing a safety net in the even that I cannot work or cannot currently get work.

The government should defend the homeland, provide infrastructure, levy taxes to pay for said infrastructure and defense, and last but not least, get the hell out of my personal life and my business.

your turn...:)

That sounds pretty good. I would add that it should protect citizens from each other as well (criminal law). And, as I said above, while I don't think the government must do so, I think it is a good idea to have a government safety net for people who temporarily need it. Such programs should be geared towards self-sufficiency.

Cheese!

That sounds pretty good. I would add that it should protect citizens from each other as well (criminal law). And, as I said above, while I don't think the government must do so, I think it is a good idea to have a government safety net for people who temporarily need it. Such programs should be geared towards self-sufficiency.

I feel like that falls under the defense of the homeland, but I will agree with that, the question is, what should the extent of the government laws be. IN my opinion, they should be based on the second tablet of the Ten Commandments (don't kill, steal, etc. The first tablet deals with beliefs, the second with secular issues). Anything more than that is in my opinion too much.

I think the one role of government is a pretty broad one from which lots of functions can be extrapolated.

The government's one directive should be to work to improve, or at the very least, maintain, the standard of living for its citizens. The two most immediate functions of this government would be 1. military protection and 2. health care. These two departments are the two most direct ways to maintain, protect, and eventually better the standard of living for citizens.

This is part of why it is mind-boggling to me that people don't think the government should provide health care for people who can't get it otherwise, but that's for another thread, eh?

The government should do the following:

1. Stop us from involuntarily killing/hurting each other, but not ourselves.
2. Provide defense from other, crackpot governments.
3. Leave everything that can be done better by a private citizen or organization, done be said citizen or organization.

If it does anything more, it's not doing it's job. If it does anything less, it's not a government.:)

I would agree with you on all of that.

I think the one role of government is a pretty broad one from which lots of functions can be extrapolated.

The government's one directive should be to work to improve, or at the very least, maintain, the standard of living for its citizens. The two most immediate functions of this government would be 1. military protection and 2. health care. These two departments are the two most direct ways to maintain, protect, and eventually better the standard of living for citizens.


I disagree, the government should promote the standard of living of its people by letting the free form price system do what it does best, developing economies.

Consider the following, since independence up until about the 1980's or 90's India and China both ran upon more or less socialist systems of development. The Chinese were Communists, while the Indian economy ran under the model of the egalitarian development model (a model that allows the entire country to develop at an equal, though slow rate). When they adopted the free market open border model (the kind of model that made Japan's econ. the bomb diggity thing it is today) their economies exploded! Sure, at first, the growth was centered in the urban centers on the coast, but now, the growth is heading into the interior, something that never happened in the past.

These two examplars support the concept that a free market can bring about the greatest benefit to the greatest number of people.

This is part of why it is mind-boggling to me that people don't think the government should provide health care for people who can't get it otherwise, but that's for another thread, eh?

I would also like to make the statement that new mandates placed on the free market healthcare system we have now have made it so that the prices of healthcare are even higher that they would be without government intervention, they would be at affordable levels for those who can't afford it now. I will not go further into that discussion today, some other time would be better, but I look forward to a discussion on a later date if you wish.

A lot of people here in the US are coming to the belief that:

1. The purpose of government is to write me a check.
2. The purpose of government is to give me benefits not listed in the Constitution.
3. The purpose of government is to take stuff away from people who work and make money, and give it to people who don't want to work.
4. The purpose of government is to write silly laws that tell people how to live their lives (or not live them) - i.e., no sodomy, no abortions, no freedom of speech, etc.
5. Both parties seem to be anxious to undo the basic rights under the Constitution. On at least one or more amendments.
6. The purpose of government is to give me cheap gas to drive my Prius, so that I can drive cheap and feel good about the environment at the same time.
7. The purpose of government is to make immigration illegal, so I can get my lawn done on the cheap.

3. Leave everything that can be done better by a private citizen or organization, done be said citizen or organization.
Fair enough, but who decides what those things are?

A lot of people here in the US are coming to the belief that:

1. The purpose of government is to write me a check.
2. The purpose of government is to give me benefits not listed in the Constitution.
3. The purpose of government is to take stuff away from people who work and make money, and give it to people who don't want to work.
4. The purpose of government is to write silly laws that tell people how to live their lives (or not live them) - i.e., no sodomy, no abortions, no freedom of speech, etc.
5. Both parties seem to be anxious to undo the basic rights under the Constitution. On at least one or more amendments.
6. The purpose of government is to give me cheap gas to drive my Prius, so that I can drive cheap and feel good about the environment at the same time.
7. The purpose of government is to make immigration illegal, so I can get my lawn done on the cheap.


Yeah, sadly true. Are you a Paulite?

In your opinion, what should your government do for you? Should it dictate your lifestyle? Your religion? Should it just get out of the way? Maybe you think that it should pay your rent when you don't want to work? Post your views here, and please, be respectful of others' views and if you disagree have a reasoned debate on the differences, not a childish outburst.

Crimean Republic:

The government should defend the homeland, provide infrastructure, levy taxes to pay for said infrastructure and defense, and last but not least, get the hell out of my personal life and my business.

your turn...:)

Most importantly, government should protect.

Protect 'us' from whoever wants to attack us.

Protect the weak from the strong, the minority from the majority, the poor from the predations of the rich....

Government should help keep those honest who would be criminal without external help.

Government should help to maintain a status quo where everyone can be equal, where no one is discriminated against, and where everyone can get an acceptable quality of life.

Collect minimal taxes and defend our borders. That's it.

The government should do the following:

1. Stop us from involuntarily killing/hurting each other, but not ourselves.
2. Provide defense from other, crackpot governments.
3. Leave everything that can be done better by a private citizen or organization, done be said citizen or organization.

If it does anything more, it's not doing it's job. If it does anything less, it's not a government.:)

You do realize that 3 is extremely debatable, yes?

Most importantly, government should protect.

Protect 'us' from whoever wants to attack us.

Protect the weak from the strong, the minority from the majority, the poor from the predations of the rich....

Government should help keep those honest who would be criminal without external help.

Government should help to maintain a status quo where everyone can be equal, where no one is discriminated against, and where everyone can get an acceptable quality of life.


Yeah, uh, that is called communism, and they had a government that tried that once. It was called the Soviet Union, and it failed, horribly in the face of the United States and the more libertarian world

Collect minimal taxes and defend our borders. That's it.

What about roads, rails, trains and subways?

Fair enough, but who decides what those things are?

Erm... *Ponders* Everything not in the first two points?

Communist! :p
You've found me out! *Cries* :p

I know its a generalization but only libertarians make these threads...

the role of government is to provide and care for the people to which it controls (and I've worded that to be as vague as the question itself though I was tempted to stick the enviroment in somehow)

3. Leave everything that can be done better by a private citizen or organization, done be said citizen or organization.

Communist! :p

These two examplars support the concept that a free market can bring about the greatest benefit to the greatest number of people.

are you sure you want to start talking about globalism before I get started (not least of which is that China's happened the opposite way with the rural west opening up first)

SNIP

8. that the government is only responsible for providing the military ra ra ra and this and that about fair tax leaving things like LVT to be ignored

Yeah, uh, that is called communism, and they had a government that tried that once. It was called the Soviet Union, and it failed, horribly in the face of the United States and the more libertarian world

equality =/= communism though it raises some serious questions as to how you view the crisis of Americas wealth divide

You do realize that 3 is extremely debatable, yes?

I know, I know.....

The government should do the following:

1. Stop us from involuntarily killing/hurting each other, but not ourselves.
2. Provide defense from other, crackpot governments.
3. Leave everything that can be done better by a private citizen or organization, done be said citizen or organization.

If it does anything more, it's not doing it's job. If it does anything less, it's not a government.:)
You know what's the best argument against number 3? The US healthcare system. Privatising only works if people aren't greedy assholes, too bad people áre greedy assholes. I'de love to see it the way you say it should be, but that requires a huge morality shift, away from the "more more" consumer culture. The fact that we humans alwayse live in our monkeysphere (http://www.cracked.com/article_14990_what-monkeysphere.html) doesn't help for such a system as well. It would be perfect, but maybe it's even a utopia.

What about roads, rails, trains and subways?

Hence "minimal taxes"

Just enough to make things run efficiently

You do realize that 3 is extremely debatable, yes?

Isn't that the point of General? :p

Yeah, uh, that is called communism, and they had a government that tried that once. It was called the Soviet Union, and it failed, horribly in the face of the United States and the more libertarian world

Communism is the economic model, and I believe it's pretty much yet to be tried on a large scale.

Reagrdless - how is equality, quality of life and protection from predation a 'communist' agenda? Aren't all of those things that, for example, the (commu-phobic) US governmentclaims to be interested in?

are you sure you want to start talking about globalism before I get started (not least of which is that China's happened the opposite way with the rural west opening up first)


Yes, I do want to talk about globalism. I am in full support of it, even though the United States and other nations may be losing jobs to the great big sucking sound, it brings their consumers the best possible product at the best possible price, its basic economics.

Yes, I do want to talk about globalism. I am in full support of it, even though the United States and other nations may be losing jobs to the great big sucking sound, it brings their consumers the best possible product at the best possible price, its basic economics.

No it doesn't, it brings consumers the cheapest profitable product, at whatever the market will bear.

Jesus, why do so many people who harp on about 'basic economics' lack any realworld perspective?

You've found me out! *Cries* :p

*points out that private boarding school graduates fare far worse at university level*

and he wants the government to snatch children!

The government should define and enforce property rights, improve its citizens human capital, mitigate the business cycle, fight inflation, provide necessary physical infrastructure, protect the environment, regulate businesses, fight poverty, ect.

equality =/= communism though it raises some serious questions as to how you view the crisis of Americas wealth divide

The stratification is a temporary phenomenon, due to the rise in the forclosure rate and rising food prices. It will shrink when the business cycle reaches its trough, then it begin to shrink, as it naturally does. Besides, compare our middle class to that of the Soviet Union back in the day. And you will see, our system is much more egalitarian in its structure.

I feel at the most basic level the government is there to serve the people and ensure their safety and well-being by providing for them those things they are unable (note I did not say unwilling) to provide for themselves. This includes protection of obvious threats such as law enforcement and military protection but also the provision of education, health care and baisc infrastructure (but not necessarily the services using this infrastructure) and a level of regulation of businesses (on the level of safety practices, environmental protection and anti-monopoly legislation).

Free markets are all very well but the principle aim of a free market enterprise is to make a profit. I am firmly of the belief that neither education, health care nor basic infrastructure should EVER be made into profit making businesses. This does not mean that they should be centrally run, local government and decentralization I do firmly believe in but having education run by local school boards or even privately run but funded by the government is very different from it being a private free market enterprise.

You know what's the best argument against number 3? The US healthcare system. Privatising only works if people aren't greedy assholes, too bad people áre greedy assholes.

People are greedy all the time, in all things. The government is more involved in health care now then most people think.
] In the United States, around 84% of citizens have some form of health insurance; either through their employer (60%), purchased individually (9%), or provided by government programs (27%; there is some overlap in these figures).

Yes, I do want to talk about globalism. I am in full support of it, even though the United States and other nations may be losing jobs to the great big sucking sound, it brings their consumers the best possible product at the best possible price, its basic economics.
And CREATES more jobs in the process...;)

Yeah, uh, that is called communism, and they had a government that tried that once. It was called the Soviet Union, and it failed, horribly in the face of the United States and the more libertarian world

I think you confuse communism with Stalinism.
Libertarian? Considering your sucker-born-every-minute knowledge of communism, I would venture a guess you don't know alot about libertarianism. Maybe you could point me to some countries where that works.

No it doesn't, it brings consumers the cheapest profitable product, at whatever the market will bear.


And that sir, is basic economics, a simple S&D curve

and he wants the government to snatch children!

Yes, in the middle of the night, they will bring them to a secret area called the COMPOUND, at which they will make them marry five Mormon women under the age of ten.

*Snip*

Jesus, why do so many people who harp on about 'basic economics' lack any realworld perspective?

Much like yourself.

I think you confuse communism with Stalinism.
Libertarian? Considering your sucker-born-every-minute knowledge of communism, I would venture a guess you don't know alot about libertarianism. Maybe you could point me to some countries where that works.
It worked in the USA before FDR. Curse you FDR! And he said MORE libertarian, and almost everything is MORE libertarian then Russian Communism.

Isn't that the point of General? :p

Yep. It could have read the government should do what can't be done better by private citizens and organizations. That could be nothing, anarchism, or everything, Authoritarian central planning of all levels of society, or anything in between.

The role of government is to waste money, and give the population something to fixate on every 2/4/whatever years when an election pops up so they don't notice they're dull pathetic lives.

Yep. It could have read the government should do what can't be done better by private citizens and organizations. That could be nothing, anarchism, or everything, Authoritarian central planning of all levels of society, or anything in between.

That's almost (Almost) everything! :p

Yes, I do want to talk about globalism. I am in full support of it, even though the United States and other nations may be losing jobs to the great big sucking sound, it brings their consumers the best possible product at the best possible price, its basic economics.

*takes deep breath*

No it doesn't if anything current free trade has created cronie-capitalism (e.g. Russia) where prices can be fixed and things like the big picture are ignored for instance in the case of India it loses $15 for every $1 of meat sold (through sustainable ecological function e.g. biofuel from manure)

also erm...remember that quality control issue

Most importantly, government should protect.

Protect 'us' from whoever wants to attack us.

Protect the weak from the strong, the minority from the majority, the poor from the predations of the rich....

Government should help keep those honest who would be criminal without external help.

Government should help to maintain a status quo where everyone can be equal, where no one is discriminated against, and where everyone can get an acceptable quality of life.


Yeah, uh, that is called communism, and they had a government that tried that once. It was called the Soviet Union, and it failed, horribly in the face of the United States and the more libertarian world

To me that actually sounds a lot like the government systems in most of western Europe, which are free market economies (but with elements of a socialist safety net) and, given the current economic issues globally, doing quite well thank you.

Edit: apologies for the pyramiding, I felt it important to emphasise exactly what he was calling communist

And that sir, is basic economics, a simple S&D curve

*rests case*

Yes, in the middle of the night, they will bring them to a secret area called the COMPOUND, at which they will make them marry five Mormon women under the age of ten.

don't be silly, if the government put in the investment we could have marriages on an industrial scale!

The stratification is a temporary phenomenon, due to the rise in the forclosure rate and rising food prices. It will shrink when the business cycle reaches its trough, then it begin to shrink, as it naturally does.

thats weird so all this has been happening since the 60's :eek:

http://z.about.com/d/uspolitics/1/0/h/I/household_income_1979_2005_v2.png

Besides, compare our middle class to that of the Soviet Union back in the day. And you will see, our system is much more egalitarian in its structure.

well lets talk about a nation with an actual desire for equality like say France...hmmm its telling

Here it goes...


And CREATES more jobs in the process...;)


Thanks Wingman! :p
I think you confuse communism with Stalinism.
Libertarian? Considering your sucker-born-every-minute knowledge of communism, I would venture a guess you don't know alot about libertarianism. Maybe you could point me to some countries where that works.

The gilded age was a libertarian era, and look, it brough America into the twentieth century... next please.

*takes deep breath*

No it doesn't if anything current free trade has created cronie-capitalism (e.g. Russia) where prices can be fixed and things like the big picture are ignored for instance in the case of India it loses $15 for every $1 of meat sold (through sustainable ecological function e.g. biofuel from manure)

also erm...remember that quality control issue

If they lose that much money, how the heck do they grow at a rate of 6%? I will tell you how, they are making way more money through today's system than they ever were in a government controlled model.

And on the control issue, I will conceed that I forgot one thing, inspection of food and drugs by the government in order to assure their safety for their citizens.

*thats weird so all this has been happening since the 60's :eek:

http://z.about.com/d/uspolitics/1/0/h/I/household_income_1979_2005_v2.png



well lets talk about a nation with an actual desire for equality like say France...hmmm its telling

Look who has a high PCI, I believe that would be the United States (5th in the world) over France and their semi-socialist economy (# 19).

Funny how the trend started back in the heyday of the government job creation era isn't it? We are still recovering from the stagflation caused by that grand idea created by FDR, but I am sure that that has nothing to do with it at all.

Peace out for a bit! CM keep holding down the debate.

The gilded age was a libertarian era, and look, it brough America into the twentieth century... next please.


Yeah, and the quality of life for many Americans was pretty miserable. It was necessary for America to possess the economic power it does today, but that doesn't mean the Gilded Age was good for those who lived in it. Actually, the good thing about the Gilded Age was that it provoked interest in the welfare of workers and society as a whole, not just the wealthy elite.

And lest we forget that it was the Gilded Age policy of laissez-faire that brought on the Great Depression...

The gilded age was a libertarian era, and look, it brough America into the twentieth century... next please.

so what your saying is libertarianism has an odd coincidence when it comes to minorities?

If they lose that much money, how the heck do they grow at a rate of 6%? I will tell you how, they are making way more money through today's system than they ever were in a government controlled model.

yes India is doing so well as its water, air and natural resources are destroyed to the lowest bidder and formal labour is laid off in favour of illegal workers

And on the control issue, I will conceed that I forgot one thing, inspection of food and drugs by the government in order to assure their safety for their citizens.

but surely the industry will regulate itself?!

but surely the industry will regulate itself?!

It will. *Glares at CR*

Should it dictate your lifestyle?

Lifestyle is a wide ranging word. If I want to choose the serial killer lifestyle then I think it should intervene. My view is that what you do with your own life in private is entirely up to you. When that begins to interfere significantly on other peoples lives, or when it happens in the public sphere it is very much the business of the government.

Your religion?

Not unless my religious practises violate the law of the land (i.e. acts of human/animal cruelty, FGM etc.)

Should it just get out of the way?

No, it should take responsibility and act. The rulers of a country, it's government, are responsible for the running of the nation, and to do that it needs to be in the arena, defending the country, ensuring law and order and collecting and allocating resources as necessary to provide a good and meaningful life for it's people, and giving a solid foundation to upon which develop culture, arts and sciences.

Maybe you think that it should pay your rent when you don't want to work?

Few people don't want to work. I think it is the duty of the government to ensure adequate employment exists for all people of working age. Those who are unemployed should be offered some form of paid employment. Not the "opportunities of the labour market" - but rather a literal, concrete offer of fair and honest employment appropriate to the persons skills. A person should have a fixed, reasonable amount of time to find their own work, or to accept a government allocated position during which their living expenses will be paid. If they do not accept a government offered position, or find an alternate position of their own, within this time they will be given straight choice of either taking a government position, or loosing government financial support

The government has a responsibility to it's people. In return, they have a responsibility to their rulers. both sides have to honour that. If a person isn't willing to contribute, after being looked after and having been offered a clear solution to their predicament, then they are failing in that responsibility. Similarly, if the government allows one of it's people to starve or go homeless, a person who are trying their best to honour their own responsibilities by trying to find work but being unsuccessful, then the rulers have failed in their responsibilities.

Post your views here, and please, be respectful of others' views and if you disagree have a reasoned debate on the differences, not a childish outburst.

Everyone, from the top to the bottom, has a place, places which all have responcibilities that must be honoured, and benefits that must be felt.

I think you SMELL and your view is a big pile of MONKEY POO!!!

*throws toys out of pram*

:p

The gilded age was a libertarian era, and look, it brough America into the twentieth century... next please.

I didn't say era, I said country. Is America still libertarian? Alot of ages were communist ages, that's not the point or question.
If you insist on being a smartass, Stalinism brought the USSR into the twentieth century.

And that sir, is basic economics, a simple S&D curve


Yes.

And it's the absolute denial of the claim you previously made.

Much like yourself.


How so? I did the Uni time, and I've run businesses. I've seen how the economics apply in the real world, and I've studied them in the classroom. And the two perspectives do not always mesh, in reality.

Amusingly, however - what I'm going to take away from this is that you agreed with me (look at your S&D comment), and then claimed it as evidence I was clueless.

Priceless.

but surely the industry will regulate itself?!

:rolleyes: :D

Look who has a high PCI, I believe that would be the United States (5th in the world) over France and their semi-socialist economy (# 19).

which means nothing about equality however France's HDI is 10 America is ranked at 12

Funny how the trend started back in the heyday of the government job creation era isn't it? We are still recovering from the stagflation caused by that grand idea created by FDR, but I am sure that that has nothing to do with it at all.

wait...did you just suggest that inequality was an issue during the 40-50's? are you blaming your current economic inequality on a president dating from 1933

well I guess everything since has just been a blur of no changes happening at all then

People are greedy all the time, in all things. The government is more involved in health care now then most people think.
And because they're greedy, craploads of things shouldn't be privatised, because they're way to damn important to be done for profit. That's the problem, so many times you can simply see this: money > people. And that's why privatisation fails for a lot of things. If that mentality turns around, then I would fully embrace privatisation.

Look who has a high PCI, I believe that would be the United States (5th in the world) over France and their semi-socialist economy (# 19).


Surely, GINI would be a better measure of income equality?

In which measure, the US fails hard... comparable to sub-Saharan Africa. No wonder you choose to ignore that measure...

It will. *Glares at CR*

so its the evil government bullying corporations into putting lead into toys! (because what else would they spend taxpayer money on?)

And because they're greedy, craploads of things shouldn't be privatised, because they're way to damn important to be done for profit. That's the problem, so many times you can simply see this: money > people. And that's why privatisation fails for a lot of things. If that mentality turns around, then I would fully embrace privatisation.

So the government isn't made out of people. Woah! What did I miss?

so its the evil government bullying corporations into putting lead into toys! (because what else would they spend taxpayer money on?)
*Cough* Chinese Commies *Cough,cough* :p

Nah, kidding. But think about it, once the news got out into the media (Always looking for a story,they are) how much money do you think the company lost? They won't be trying it again, unless GWB is the CEO...:eek:

So the government isn't made out of people. Woah! What did I miss?
It's not made out of people who do it all for the cold hard cash, that's the difference.

It's not made out of people who do it all for the cold hard cash, that's the difference.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

...

Oh God, you were serious, weren't you?

you would of thought rival companies would of taken note but no which leads to the madness of checking where your pet food comes from

And note that government regulation didn't stop that! :eek:

Nah, kidding. But think about it, once the news got out into the media (Always looking for a story,they are) how much money do you think the company lost? They won't be trying it again, unless GWB is the CEO...:eek:

Remember how that issue was actually handled?

The toy company that had been importing untested goods and pasing them straight onto the consumer, was lauded as 'heroic' for recalling the faulty goods they'd been selling in the first place.

They imported poor quality goods (because they could exploit a cheap workforce that way)... did no quality control of their own (or even made safety-conscious specifications in the purchase agreement), sold a defective product to the consumer... and when they got caught, blamed the sweatshops.

And the American public lapped it up.

*Cough* Chinese Commies *Cough,cough* :p

Nah, kidding. But think about it, once the news got out into the media (Always looking for a story,they are) how much money do you think the company lost? They won't be trying it again, unless GWB is the CEO...:eek:

you would of thought rival companies would of taken note but no which leads to the madness of checking where your pet food comes from

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

...

Oh God, you were serious, weren't you?
Is the government for profit then? Is it a corporation or business?

Is the government for profit then? Is it a corporation or business?

You don't need to be a corporation to be for profit, or even greedy for that matter.

You don't need to be a corporation to be for profit, or even greedy for that matter.
We call an institution who produces things or delivers services a business. That's what's so shitty about today's consumer culture, especially in businesses and large international corporations, money > people.
Businesses are doing what they do for themselfs, governments are assistances for the public.

In your opinion, what should your government do for you?Set the conditions to lead a fulfilling life.

Should it dictate your lifestyle? Your religion? Should it just get out of the way?No.

Maybe you think that it should pay your rent when you don't want to work?Well, that may seem nice; but I think it wouldn't be a very fulfilling way to life. I have that sneaking suspicious that people should feel like they occasionally achieve things, and having thrown everything in your lap wouldn't do that.
Now, the same problem is encountered in zoos. One of the things they do there to keep animals happy is to make them do some work for their food, rather than just throwing it at them; things like hiding it, or freezing it in blocks of ice or putting it in puzzles.
Err, not to say I imagine a country should be run like a zoo.. much..

I didn't say era, I said country. Is America still libertarian? Alot of ages were communist ages, that's not the point or question.
If you insist on being a smartass, Stalinism brought the USSR into the twentieth century.


I wasn't being a smartass, what made you think that.

And I would like to make the comment that millions of people did not have to die under the lassiez faire system in place during the Gilded Age. Not a boast you can make for Stalinism.

Finally, you want a country, Switzerland, that's a libertarian country that worked. Oh and still, America, ever since Reagan we have been libertarian again.

I wasn't being a smartass, what made you think that.

And I would like to make the comment that millions of people did not have to die under the lassiez faire system in place during the Gilded Age. Not a boast you can make for Stalinism.

Finally, you want a country, Switzerland, that's a libertarian country that worked. Oh and still, America, ever since Reagan we have been libertarian again.

Neither the US nor Switzerland are libertarian.

The role of government is to wither away.

EDIT: Obviously, it will never do that unless force is used.

The role of government is to wither away.

EDIT: Obviously, it will never do that unless force is used.

And where, exactly, would that leave us? Except in a sea of chaos, of course. Have you seriously sat down and thought through the full implications of this?

Who would codify and enforce the law? No rules sounds great, but what about rapists, murderers, bandits, fraudsters?

Who would maintain existing infrastructure, and design and oversee construction of new infrastructure? Water, waste, power, transit?

Who would protect and defend you against external threats?

Who would ensure your access to advanced healthcare? Who would fund it and administer it?

Who would provide high level (i.e. university level) education?

1) Defend us from threats both within and without
2) Keep people well enough to live their lives
3) Educate the people

And where, exactly, would that leave us? Except in a sea of chaos, of course.

Sir Thomas Hobbes? Is that you?


Have you seriously sat down and thought through the full implications of this?

Yes. Have you sat down and thought through the full implications of having the State?


Who would codify and enforce the law? No rules sounds great, but what about rapists, murderers, bandits, fraudsters?

Straw man. I'm not here to advocate "no rules." I'm here to advocate "no monopoly of force."

Who would protect people's rights? People who want their own protected. Who would not protect people's rights? People who hate freedom.


Who would maintain existing infrastructure, and design and oversee construction of new infrastructure? Water, waste, power, transit?

People who want to use it.


Who would protect and defend you against external threats?

People who want to defend themselves.


Who would ensure your access to advanced healthcare? Who would fund it and administer it?

People who want to be doctors. People who want medical care.


Who would provide high level (i.e. university level) education?
Universities and people who want to provide high level education.

The Role of the Government is to provide a means to organize from the top down the various parts that make up the group of people it governs, in order to ensure the existence of itself.

In other words, a Government organizes people into a coherent society that is productive in some manner, and in doing so legitimizes the claim of the people to that piece of land that they claim is their country, on the world stage. In doing so, however, it reaffirms need for the Government in the first place.

The government should do the following:

1. Stop us from involuntarily killing/hurting each other, but not ourselves.
2. Provide defense from other, crackpot governments.
3. Leave everything that can be done better by a private citizen or organization, done be said citizen or organization.

If it does anything more, it's not doing it's job. If it does anything less, it's not a government.:)

I agree, but I might say involuntarily OR voluntarily killing each other...killing ain't too good.
Governments are meant to keep people organized so that everyone understands what other people are thinking; and so that they can unite to defend themselves...from terrorists...and nutjobs. They were not created to force me to get healthcare...of course I will get healthcare, but some people can make the decision not to. They may be damning themselves but thats not my fault or the governments concern.

Sir Thomas Hobbes? Is that you?


Yes. Have you sat down and thought through the full implications of having the State?


Straw man. I'm not here to advocate "no rules." I'm here to advocate "no monopoly of force."

Who would protect people's rights? People who want their own protected. Who would not protect people's rights? People who hate freedom.


People who want to use it.


People who want to defend themselves.


People who want to be doctors. People who want medical care.


Universities and people who want to provide high level education.
And how is all of that being payed then?

In your opinion, what should your government do for you?

It should establish equal political relations among myself and other citizens, so as to secure our freedom from abuses of power.

Should it dictate your lifestyle?

Not if it's victimless, but very few things are strictly victimless. I'm willing to allow for, in theory, a wide range of government intervention in people's lives, subject to democracy (which for me is not reducible to majoritarianism) and equality under law.

Your religion?

Freedom of conscience is important, but behaviors motivated by religion should be just as subject to the law as all other behaviors.

Should it just get out of the way?

Sometimes, but generally I think "privatization" (in a broad sense) tends to erode freedom rather than promote it.

Maybe you think that it should pay your rent when you don't want to work?

Not necessarily a bad idea. Ideally labor would be a purely voluntary endeavor.

In your opinion, what should your government do for you? Should it dictate your lifestyle? Your religion? Should it just get out of the way? Maybe you think that it should pay your rent when you don't want to work? Post your views here, and please, be respectful of others' views and if you disagree have a reasoned debate on the differences, not a childish outburst.

Crimean Republic:

The government should defend the homeland, provide infrastructure, levy taxes to pay for said infrastructure and defense, and last but not least, get the hell out of my personal life and my business.

your turn...:)

*Sigh*

The government should do for me what every government is supposed to do for every citizen of every nation on earth: 1) provide a means of decision making that I ratify or refuse by providing active or tacit support for the government or moving elsewhere if the government fails to satisfy me, 2) provide a goal of action that this decision-making process is supposed to act towards, that I can use as a measurement test of the relevant decision-making process.

Since I'm an American, the means of decision-making has been outlined in the Constitution, the goal has been expressed thusly *points at Preamble of Constitution*:


We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings
of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this
Constitution for the United States of America.

And my means of assent to the Constitution are to vote in elections.

Standard classical liberal answer.

Straw man. I'm not here to advocate "no rules." I'm here to advocate "no monopoly of force."

What's a "monopoly of force"?

If we meet together as a community and decide collectively on certain rules for what does and does not count as a legitimate use of force, and then we commit ourselves to collectively enforcing those rules through some means, is that a "monopoly of force"?

Maybe you think that it should pay your rent when you don't want to work?

it should 'pay your rent' (up to a certain minimum) regardless of whether you work or not. likewise for food and clothing.

What's a "monopoly of force"?

If we meet together as a community and decide collectively on certain rules for what does and does not count as a legitimate use of force, and then we commit ourselves to collectively enforcing those rules through some means, is that a "monopoly of force"?
Bad definition? Please provide one for me that you like better. In any case, I'm here to argue against what we all understand to be national states.

On my definition, I would say a monopoly of force is generated when we take those individuals and say those people are the only ones whose moral agency matters, and they are the only ones entitled to use force.

Also, when how many national states started as communities meeting to decide to follow certain rules. Isn't it true that most, if not all national states were imposed by force?

Bad definition? Please provide one for me that you like better. In any case, I'm here to argue against what we all understand to be national states.

I don't like talking about "monopolies of force" at all. I prefer to talk about class: rulers and ruled.

On my definition, I would say a monopoly of force is generated when we take those individuals and say those people are the only ones whose moral agency matters, and they are the only ones entitled to use force.

But "entitlement" can be conferred. We can establish a body tasked with enforcing the rules that are a product of collective agreement. We're not saying anything about their exclusive moral agency; indeed, we're saying that they can only exercise the authority we give them in their official capacity and in accordance with the rules we have agreed upon.

I don't think there's anything inherently non-anarchist about this. True, an anarchist polity should be cautious on this point--a professional body to which we confer the authority of enforcing the rules carries the risk of evolving into a law in itself, a body exercising power over others. But it's not the same thing as setting up a class of rulers over us, of deciding that there should be certain individuals who are tasked with making the laws in political processes from which most of the public is excluded.

Isn't it true that most, if not all national states were imposed by force?

Of course it is, but we're not escaping the legacy of force and dispossession whatever political entity we adopt... almost every scrap of land on the planet has been stolen at one point or another.

What we should do is adopt the political form that comes as close as possible to reconciling the necessity of political authority (to set rules for social behavior) with the inalienable nature of human freedom. Social anarchism manages best here, I think. But it shouldn't be portrayed as simply knocking out one side of the tension.

Sir Thomas Hobbes? Is that you?

Only in part. I agree with some of his ideas, but not all of them.

Yes. Have you sat down and thought through the full implications of having the State?

Yes, and I concluded that it is beneficial. I have no desire to live in another 1990's Mogadishu.

Straw man. I'm not here to advocate "no rules." I'm here to advocate "no monopoly of force."

No monopoly of force will quickly become no rules, as everyone will fight to enforce their own set of self-determined rules in a state of civil war (or lower level conflict, "troubles"), until the faction able to deploy the greatest amount of force defeats the others and establishes it's own unchallenged rules and the unchallenged power to enforce them, i.e. a government.

Who would protect people's rights? People who want their own protected. Who would not protect people's rights? People who hate freedom.

Pure self policing rarely truly happens. Even in the smallest communities there is a hierarchy of some kind which allows for a case can be heard and some form of punishment handed down, the authority of which is accepted. Even at the village level in illiterate societies this was, and is, the norm. And this is no different to the way a modern court system acts, only scaled and organised to function in a vastly larger society.

People who want to use it.

This would prove both utterly impractical and represent a crushing financial outlay for most individuals, particularly in urban areas. The idea of cities of 10 or 20 million people using a cobbled together DIY sewerage and mains water system makes me shudder. Let us now add the gun toting gangs ensuring open competition in force... not pretty.

People who want to defend themselves.

And those who are unable to do so?

People who want to be doctors. People who want medical care.

A half decent hospital requires more than just physicians. And a health care system requires more than just hospitals. I assume also these doctors, since there is no government to pay them from taxes, would have to be directly charging the public for their services, and the expenses of running their hospital?

Universities and people who want to provide high level education.

Universities are a part of the government. Not officially (in most cases), but they are inseparable from it due to their links with government bodies and direct and indirect funding sources. Universities have only ever flourished with state support to provide the resources necessary for their work. In addition (and, in effect, in return) the finest universities are usually the providers of the workers who serve as civil servants and specialists, as well as assisting the government in developing and deploying new techniquies, and social and scientific advances.

In your opinion, what should your government do for you? Should it dictate your lifestyle? Your religion? Should it just get out of the way? Maybe you think that it should pay your rent when you don't want to work? Post your views here, and please, be respectful of others' views and if you disagree have a reasoned debate on the differences, not a childish outburst.

Crimean Republic:

The government should defend the homeland, provide infrastructure, levy taxes to pay for said infrastructure and defense, and last but not least, get the hell out of my personal life and my business.

your turn...:)

Ideally, the government exists to do those things for us that we are unable to do for ourselves. Unfortunately, a certain mentality has decided that we are unable to do anything for ourselves.