Government for the people. How?

[Izzy]

The objective of this thread is to altruistically* design a political structure wherein the needs and interests of EVERY inhabitant of this country are met. (None of this "general public" crap, we should try to make everyone happy. ) It's impossible to not be aware of how inconceivable this sounds, but I think by being mindful of what we're trying to accomplish, but.. just might be feasible?**

Now, before we can even begin devising laws, creating our constitution, bill of rights, etc., I think it's best we assemble a list of what people want from their government. Feel free to contribute ANYTHING. (I stole some of these from the world's smallest political quiz and the bill of rights. >_>)

1. Government should not censor speech, press, media, or internet.
2. Military service should be voluntary.
3. There should be no laws regarding sex for consenting adults, where a consenting adult is anyone of 16 years of age or older.
4. Repeal laws prohibiting adult possession and use of drugs.
5. End government barriers to international free trade.
6. Let people control their own retirement; privatize Social Security.
7. Keep government welfare, but no taxation without representation.
8. Freedom of speech, religion, sexuality, peaceful protests, and petition.
9. Soldiers may not be quartered in a house without the consent of the owner.
10. People may not be unreasonably searched or kept in captivity.
11. The right to a free, public, and speedy trial.
12. Laws are to remain the same from State to State.
13. Eventual globalization is a priority.

*We can get into the semantics of altruism later. I have.. mixed feelings, but this most closely elucidates my intentions. (Lol, I swear, I bounce back and forth from being the apathetic hippy civilian who just wants to live to the extremely fervent humanitarian practically daily. >_>)
** Eh, truthfully, it isn't. Too many people disagree on matters of religion, which define the moral code for a LOT of people (even if they don't strictly adhere to it, haha). We need to agree now to define morals for ourselves and not base them off of religious texts. Like, if someone proposes "Don't kill", that's perfectly acceptable, and I expect it to be fully ratified. If someone else suggests "Love God", this is more open to debate. While you can submit ideas that coincide with religious texts, submit them because they are mandates you want and agree with, not just because your scripture of choice tells you to follow them.

Edited February 13, 2014 by bonanova

[gvg]

Bob's offer was that you and a thousand friends and family must spend your entire lives working to build him a house and his family and friends some houses and in exchange he will keep your baby alive. Assuming your dozen friends are like you and would go along with the offer if you wanted to go along with it, would you have you and your thousand friends and family work your whole lives to keep your one baby alive? I shouldn't even have to use this argument because you should see that a baby is replaceable with only a small amount of energy, but because your values seem to prevent you from liking the idea of replacing a baby, I instead present you with this scenario to show you how messed up your values are. You're not going to make a billion dollars building houses your entire life. Your house-building work might amount to a million dollars if you're an outstanding worker. So that means you need you and a thousand friends to work your whole lives in order to make an even trade with this guy Bob whose genius allows him to save your baby. Would you agree to Bob's trade? Would you and 1000 friends work your whole lives for Bob (and not receive any pay to stay alive yourselves, realize) to save your baby? Please tell me you're sane enough to say no.

While I do not think that it is fair to mark a baby like that, no, I would not agree.

You see, my main concern is this:

I am not happy with the fact that much of your life is determined by luck (you can't disagree with that).

I believe that (ignoring the lotto) there should only be a couple of times that luck should play a role:

1. Being born with kind, loving parents

2. Being born able to work

3. Being born with or developing the mindset to work harder and get what you deserve.

Luck should not play a role in your financial situation, which is why I am for a progressive tax.

Really, there are two types of people who I want eradicated:

1. Freeloaders

2. Kids born into rich families who, by choice, never work in their life. (If they continue to work, I have no problem, because they have proven that they deserve what they have).

I believe in giving people a chance to prove that they deserve good in life, which is why I disagree with communism, which doesn't allow individuals to shine.

That's what my policies are based off of.

[Guest]

Apply my logic to everyone and everyone dies? Okay, you're definitely out of it.

Izzy was talking about Bonanova's situation. She's saying that without empathy for other people, without giving people an intrinsic value, you're going to have chaos. In modern society, people who lack empathy for others are generally called psychopaths. They have no concept of other people's worth and care only about themselves. Serial killers are the prime example. My dad told me a story from a number of years ago about two women who (briefly) escaped from a high security prison. After being apprehended, the local media interviewed one of the women. They asked her, "If the other woman had gotten in the way; if she had slowed you down, what would you have done?" The woman responded in complete disinterest, "Oh, I would have killed her." This woman is seriously disturbed. Izzy is saying that by treating people as having the intrinsic worth of "10 food" and nothing more, you are basically reducing the system down to the level of psychopaths.

Under your guise of illogical scenarios that don't really prove anything (since they're kind of liking betting in poker with no money), let's say we live in a society where we don't put any sort of value on individual life. Say I like your house, but I don't really like you living in it. I think that you're an idiot and a drag on society. I think that since I have better genes, I have a right to do something about it. So I kill you and then I keep the house for my new-born son. It's just another human (with better genes in my theoretical opinion). I see it as an improvement on society, so perfectly moral, no?

That's why she's saying your way would result in mass death. And that's also why it's ridiculous to compare the life of a real human to the "representational existence" of a virtual reality human in a game. It's apples and oranges.

Government's primary goal is to stabilize society. It would be better to prevent backslide than to risk significant backslide to maybe move forward. We would like to improve society, but government is not the prime mover of societal progress. It is the framework that allows for societal progress. Society needs government to provide stability to allow improvement, but government alone is not sufficient for progress. Empathy and ethics and morality all play a role (along with many things I can't think of/don't know of).

So far as I can tell, you seem to have chosen to ignore my suggestion that you try reading the ideas of different political philosophers to expand your currently limited perspective. If you're interested in morality and ethics, I would recommend Aristotle's "Nicomachean Ethics". It's a pre-Christian, nonreligious study of ethical society. It's always good to expand you sources to get the best possible perspective on the situation. Most of your theoretical situations (and probably mine) are, in my view, at best tangential to the issues at the core of building a good government. You can't build a society off of theoretical situations. You need actual data and actual ideas and plans. Your theory of the "ideal" government is just that, a theory (and not the scientific variety either). Unless you have some actual ideas for implementation, there's not much more that it can contribute to this thread. As someone has suggested, it would make for a very interesting continuation of discussion in its own thread, but, as I see it, this was a thread to try to design a practical, workable government that could conceivably be implemented without a major upheaval (I admit that I could be wrong on that point ). So we would be happy to hear your (and anyone else's) thoughts on that (now deeply buried) list of governmental goals (which I'm feeling too lazy to dig up right now).

[Izzy]

Do you value a billion dollars of colorful paper less than your house? If so, give me your money, I'll gladly give you some of my physical possessions that you value more than colorful paper.

I value a baby more than a billion dollar house. Possessions have value, life is price less.

I don't think you get the point. You've completely taken the order and productivity out of my thread. If you disagree what we're trying to do here - which is create a functioning society where people are happy first and foremost - you disagree with our goals, and are holding us back. You can either present opposite objectives (which you've done), and if we agree, they can be taken in for consideration. However, when they're crazy, of course we won't.

You can, at any time, (and have already been invited to do so), create your own thread and picket your ideas there.

Maybe in a month we can compare governments and see who's got it right.

[Guest]

Under your guise of illogical scenarios that don't really prove anything (since they're kind of liking betting in poker with no money), let's say we live in a society where we don't put any sort of value on individual life. Say I like your house, but I don't really like you living in it. I think that you're an idiot and a drag on society. I think that since I have better genes, I have a right to do something about it. So I kill you and then I keep the house for my new-born son. It's just another human (with better genes in my theoretical opinion). I see it as an improvement on society, so perfectly moral, no?

I thought I made it clear that when I was arguing for things that made society more prosperous, I was arguing for you all's morals, not mine. My morals involve every individual having equal rights. If it's moral for a poor man to steal from a rich man, then it's also moral for a rich man to steal from a poor man. Of course, I don't think stealing is moral. You all do. And you think it is moral because you think it helps out society (it helps out the poor people in society). I was just arguing that if you cared about society, then you shouldn't want to give all of rich peoples' production to the poor by forcing them to pay for billion dollar surgeries. Didn't I say all of this already? I then said in reality, I didn't care whether or not it helped humanity as a whole to give rich peoples' money to the poor. What I cared about was the morality thing of not stealing. If I was a rich man I would support making the "good investments" with my money, but I would be careful to make as "few bad investments" as possible. On a moral note though, who am I to get to decide whether or not it is a "good investment" or a "bad investment" to spend another person's money? It's their money. Even if I was very confident that it was a "good investment" I still wouldn't steal their money in the name of society. That would be me forcing my standards of values and justice on other people. By pointing a gun at a rich man and telling him to pay to the poor, then on a moral note, I am giving him permission to use force on me to take my possessions as well. I wish to treat everybody equally. Treat others by their moral codes.

So far as I can tell, you seem to have chosen to ignore my suggestion that you try reading the ideas of different political philosophers to expand your currently limited perspective. If you're interested in morality and ethics, I would recommend Aristotle's "Nicomachean Ethics". It's a pre-Christian, nonreligious study of ethical society. It's always good to expand you sources to get the best possible perspective on the situation. Most of your theoretical situations (and probably mine) are, in my view, at best tangential to the issues at the core of building a good government. You can't build a society off of theoretical situations. You need actual data and actual ideas and plans. Your theory of the "ideal" government is just that, a theory (and not the scientific variety either). Unless you have some actual ideas for implementation, there's not much more that it can contribute to this thread. As someone has suggested, it would make for a very interesting continuation of discussion in its own thread, but, as I see it, this was a thread to try to design a practical, workable government that could conceivably be implemented without a major upheaval (I admit that I could be wrong on that point ). So we would be happy to hear your (and anyone else's) thoughts on that (now deeply buried) list of governmental goals (which I'm feeling too lazy to dig up right now).

I did bypass the suggestion. Do you have anything in particular you would recommend me reading? I admit I haven't read any of that stuff on any political or ethical subject. I would really love to find a great argument for a more socialist government so that I could finally see you all's views as decent. Currently they seem crazy. I still don't understand why you think it's okay to take someone's money against their will and spend it for any purpose. I don't care if its the most altruistic purpose in the world. You could even be spending it all on the person who you are stealing from (steal their money and buy them a present with it), and it would still be just as immoral. I said earlier that I know I'm a libertarian because that's the first view I came across that I thought made sense. I might have easily met an intelligent socialist argument and my brain may have been persuaded by that and today I could be like you all. Anyways, I can't imagine how the billion dollar baby issue could be solved by reading ancient texts. It seems extremely clear that saving a baby isn't worth working 1000 above-average lifetimes for.

[Guest]

I value a baby more than a billion dollar house. Possessions have value, life is price less.

I don't think you get the point. You've completely taken the order and productivity out of my thread. If you disagree what we're trying to do here - which is create a functioning society where people are happy first and foremost - you disagree with our goals, and are holding us back. You can either present opposite objectives (which you've done), and if we agree, they can be taken in for consideration. However, when they're crazy, of course we won't.

You can, at any time, (and have already been invited to do so), create your own thread and picket your ideas there.

Maybe in a month we can compare governments and see who's got it right.

Do you want to create a society where all people are pretty happy or just a lot of people are happy? Because of course if 90% of America's wealth is in the top 10% richest individuals then all you have to do to make a lot of people happy is take the rich peoples' money and give it to the bottom 90% of individuals. They'll certainly be happy that they are getting so much stuff for free. If that's not a way to create a functioning society where people are happy first and foremost than what is?

I stand by what I said in my first post regarding contractual governments being the only solution I know of to make a government that allows everybody to be as happy as nature allows them to be. With contractual governments, it is not considered just for one person to overpower another person. Everybody gets the same right to agreements. Thus, everybody gets to agree on whatever is in their best interests. Nobody is given the right to do anything to anybody else against their will. Every time somebody does something to somebody else against their will, it is not considered okay or just or moral; it is considered violent and not the norm. This is a system of protection and order. It's not a system that attempts to take the chance out of nature by giving lucky peoples' things to unlucky people. It's a system that recognizes that people disagree, even on who is considered to be born "lucky."

Edited July 24, 2010 by Use the Force

[unreality]

EDIT: READ MY *****WHOLE***** POST BEFORE RESPONDING. IT'S ALL ONE THING, A GESTALT, NOT MEANT TO BROKEN DOWN IN PARTS

I stand by what I said in my first post regarding contractual governments being the only solution I know of to make a government that allows everybody to be as happy as nature allows them to be.

that's what you don't understand. With anarchy (what you are proposing is actually identical to anarchy or nearly identical - aka extreme libertarianism. Don't get me wrong though I admire you for being extreme but I don't think that being extreme - especially when it comes to politics, religion, etc - is a good thing, but anyway) you can only be just that - "as happy as nature allows".

The idea of creating a regulatory system to enforce basic morality and social services is to allow more people than not to be happier than nature allows. It's about taking care of the people at all levels of society. The idea is that for the people that care about other people and know they need to pitch in for basic public services to be taken care of for them by a contractually regulatory body ('the government') to give some money from what they make in order to help others have a better standard of living.*

Now don't get me wrong. I am a libertarian. So I believe in minimizing these programs as much as possible going down to the core of basic services and people they help, and making sure people don't freeload on the system, etc. But I still believe in a kind of public interface, one that really is accountable to the people. Maybe in the future a computer controlled government would be best. That sounds ominous but science fiction horror aside, I think it might be the best route. Not now of course. But later. More on that later. It's irrelevant to the point I'm making

* the problem is when you get people that don't want to chip in. In many cases it will be because they're selfish and don't want to help others with their "hard earned dough". Or that they believe they can place it better than "the government" can - now that might be true. In fact let's say it's true for sure. But giving that permission to secede from the system and give your money away "as you choose" instead of "as the public you are part of has decreed by majority" basically means that it allows everyone to do so. You, UtF, believe in the goodness of people to help others in the situation of an anarchy. That just won't happen though. People will withdraw from the system and not make any "investments".

Your main problem with paying into the system is that you don't trust the people to put the money where it should. Well that's the whole point of this topic don't you see - crafting a better governing public body that can allocate its inputted money properly to the maximum benefit of the people. This is a complex problem but we've been sidetracked from it by someone saying that they don't want to chip in at all because of the very initial sloppy oversized conditions of government that we (hopefully) want to eliminate to create a more efficient, transparent, trustworthy body.

If we did succeed in such a venture would you trust us with your money?

Probably not because you want control. You want power over what you've made yourself, what you worked hard to produce (or inherit from your parents ) - that's totally understandable. The problem is that the amount of production/money we would have taken to help others - with your system you might give less than that. Everyone would. People don't really give to charity as it is. Do you really expect everyone (with most people financially struggling as it is) to optionally pay "taxes"?

They won't. Now if they're struggling, that's a good thing to not pay - they should be on the receiving end not the paying end. But see that's all part of crafting that more efficient better working machine to move the money. That's part of the complex problem. Not part of the reason to abandon it completely to a state of nature kill-or-be-killed. We want to transcend nature, right. To see if it's possible to create a system where all our time isn't consumed by the natural needs of survival, even that of belonging, but to strive collectively and individually for bigger and better things

Edited July 24, 2010 by unreality

[Izzy]

You're not seriously suggesting someone like Steve Jobs or Donald Trump will cry themselves to sleep because of the severe depression they're suffering because we're taxing them ever so slightly more? I think, you know, they'll be pretty happy with clean roads, health care, improved public school quality, and the ability to afford whatever they want that being taxed for things that will never personally benefit them will seem entirely trivial. Yes, okay, they're not going to be entirely happy with being taxed more, but I think their lives overall would be rather joyous. We've already established that an all-pleasing political system in an impossible feat. What you're proposing, mildly organized anarchy, results in insufficient funds to maintain the quintessence of civilization: schools, roads, etc. Yeah, while everyone gets to do what they want, empires turn to ashes, and suddenly the society you've been trying so hard to maintain is gone. I really can't see people being happier this way.

..I admire you the same way I'd admire a Christian able to hold their own in a debate without getting trampled on. The ideas, wrong and insane, are being held up with arguments that can't exactly be disproved. Though, the admiration (that's probably the wrong word - I like you in a disproving way) is being squashed by the annoyance of you not giving it up yet. (In a nice way, is what I'm trying to get at.)

*tired*

Edit: Another song that's thread appropriate that I never knew I owned. =0

Edited July 24, 2010 by Izzy

[gvg]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/7907976/Please-give-me-a-job-sign-gets-unemployed-man-back-in-work.html

This is the type of guy we're fighting for.

Edited July 25, 2010 by gvg

[Guest]

I read your post. You can read mine all the way through too before replying.

If we did succeed in such a venture would you trust us with your money?

Yes, I probably would. But, as you guessed, I would still like the choice to join such a government. As soon as I support anything other than anarchy, even a minimal form of government like the type you support as a libertarian, then I am giving up my power to others. I am no longer in a position to complain when I don't like what they do with the power that I give them.

I'm sure that logically you would see why there really isn't a difference in having to go out and buy a bike and having to go out and buy fire insurance for your house. However, I'm guessing that you still support public fire stations that you are required to pay taxes for by law. Why? Because you consider such things very "essential" services. I happen to think that fire insurance is much more essential than having a bike, and so I would probably be fine with that specific tax. But, that still doesn't change the fact that I was given that tax and that fire protection insurance by my government. I didn't choose to get it myself. Regardless of whether or not I think it's necessary or essential, I would still have it. In a libertarian system rather than anarchy, the great masses of the people forming the American electorate would still get to decide whether or not I have to pay for/receive fire insurance for my house and whether or not blah blah blah. Just because the government is minimized does not free its people completely. If someone disagrees with an essential service then you are still using the violent threat of force, pointing a gun at them to make them pay for a fire station. In any system other than anarchy, the individual is forced to give up his power to, at the very best, the collective body of the people living under his government. The collective people have still seized the individual's power. Perhaps they would form a minimal government with such a power or perhaps not. Either way, the non-contractual government would still be an inherently violent system, using the threat of force on any individual that does not want to pay for public fire insurance or that does not wish to support a war that the American people have chosen to fight. Why doesn't this individual have the power to not support the war? Why must he live under a government that taxes him for a military that can do anything without his permission? If it's not anarchy, then there will always be people who disagree with what their government does with their money and what laws their government puts on them.

If we had a libertarian society with a very minimal government then I most likely would be very happy with it. Today, our current government is so far from being a libertarian/minimal government that, in a practical political sense, there is little reason for us to bother arguing whether or not we should support our government forcing its essential services on everyone. In a theoretical sense, I'm not even sure if I disagree with you or not. I would have to experience living in a libertarian/minimalist society in order to decide confidently if I wanted individuals to have full power over themselves or if I was fine with the collective body of people living under the government that controls them retain power over me and every other individual that it rules over.

In a practical sense politically I would probably hold libertarian views at first to move away from out current, rather large government. So perhaps I'll just drop the anarchy idea and consider myself a libertarian. I want to decrease the size of the government. In my lifetime, that's probably all I'll have to worry about anyways. Okay, I'm a libertarian now. I'm still not sure whether or not I support keeping some "essential" roles for my government, to force on everybody under my government, regardless of whether or not they support them, but that doesn't seem significant in our current situation.

One day I would like to visit the Geysers at Yellowstone. I would like to keep parts of this world undeveloped and uninhabited by humans. I think it would be quite possible to preserve such things under anarchy, but at the same time, people are stupid. You know what? I do support a system of non-anarchy. There are instances where I'm perfectly willing to support an institution that violates the consent of human beings in everyday life. In other words, I do support my government pointing its guns at some people so as to prevent them from doing some certain things. Wasn't I arguing earlier that I don't care about individuals, but about society as a whole? Yeah, I do support a minimal form of government. Anarchy is not the optimum. I'm a libertarian now. Thanks for your post. "To see if it's possible to create a system where all our time isn't consumed by the natural needs of survival, even that of belonging, but to strive collectively and individually for bigger and better things."

[Guest]

What you're proposing, mildly organized anarchy, results in insufficient funds to maintain the quintessence of civilization: schools, roads, etc. Yeah, while everyone gets to do what they want, empires turn to ashes, and suddenly the society you've been trying so hard to maintain is gone. I really can't see people being happier this way.

..I admire you the same way I'd admire a Christian able to hold their own in a debate without getting trampled on. The ideas, wrong and insane, are being held up with arguments that can't exactly be disproved.

Anarchy doesn't mean you can't have a government. Anarchy is a system of agreements (contractual governments) and violence. Anarchy is not a system in which it is considered normal for governments to use the threat of force on individuals without their prior consent. Any system other than anarchy potentially is.

Wrong and insane? Why are you implying that to be an anarchist is to be as "wrong and insane" as to be a Christian? Do you consider someone who believes that dictating should be considered "not okay" as "insane" as someone who believes that when he dies, he will remain conscious in an afterlife for eternity?

On a moral level, believing that dictating of fellow humans shouldn't be okay is equivalent to believing that killing of fellow humans shouldn't be okay or anything else like that. It's a belief in a fundamental right of humans, that all humans deserve. You may disagree with it, but that doesn't make it insane. I wouldn't call your belief that all humans deserve health care as "insane." I certainly disagree with it, but that does not make you insane in my eyes. If that was insanity, then I'm afraid I would have to call essentially every human insane. If you question anybody down to their core beliefs you will almost always find that they believe strange things. This doesn't make them insane. It just means they have different values than you do. Just because their values are different does not mean you have to call them insane. Some differences in values are worthy of the word, but I assure you that you don't really regard a belief in anarchy as "insane"--especially as insane as a belief in a God who has one son who was sent to Earth 2000 years ago to help humans get to a place called "Heaven" when they die.

[Guest]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/7907976/Please-give-me-a-job-sign-gets-unemployed-man-back-in-work.html

This is the type of guy we're fighting for.

Great photo. I hope you don't mind that I'm not going to come up with an example of something you and I aren't fighting for. I'm sure that you are more than aware that there are a lot of people who aren't that determined to do something productive and who manage to just sit around and eat away at peoples' tax money, consuming their efforts with free food and shelter and health care. Anarchy would eliminate both the good and the bad, leaving it up to individuals to be charitable and give to those who they think deserve it and refrain from giving to those that don't deserve it. Note that I no longer consider myself an anarchist. Two posts above this one I decided that I'm a libertarian.

EDIT: Oh, that guy is from England, not the USA. I guess that isn't very significant at all anyways, though.

Edited July 27, 2010 by Use the Force

[gvg]

but at the same time, people are stupid.

Glad you see the one thing that begins anarchies downfall. If this (and greed) weren't true, the anarchy system would work. But since it is, a government is needed that

violates the consent of human beings in everyday life.

The war thing: I have an idea for that.

If a government wants to go to war over something that is not a direct attack on their country, it must be put up to a direct vote, and the public must be informed of exactly what they're going to war for.

This is the only time I agree with direct democracy and non-big government, because I've seen and learned about many recent instances of wars that were big 'mistakes (Such as Vietnam, Iraq, Korea).'

That's my idea.

EDIT: Yes, I know there are freeloaders. I just don't think everyone should suffer because of a small minority.

Edited July 27, 2010 by gvg

[Guest]

If a government wants to go to war over something that is not a direct attack on their country, it must be put up to a direct vote, and the public must be informed of exactly what they're going to war for.

I think I would trust the masses even less than the politicians who spend their days worrying about such things. That would turn into a large propaganda campaign to try to persuade the masses to either fight or not fight. There wouldn't be anything intelligent there. No, I think our government should adopt a defensive policy. I don't want mobs of people to be able to vote for it to go hold wars that I personally don't wish to support. I don't want to be the world's watchdog.

Also, I wouldn't call that "anarchy's downfall." Rather, I'd call it one small reason for wanting to keep a bit of forced government left.

Edited July 27, 2010 by Use the Force

[gvg]

Well then, tell me what powers you would be OK with the government having, and we'll work from there.

[Guest]

I think I would trust the masses even less than the politicians who spend their days worrying about such things. That would turn into a large propaganda campaign to try to persuade the masses to either fight or not fight. There wouldn't be anything intelligent there. No, I think our government should adopt a defensive policy. I don't want mobs of people to be able to vote for it to go hold wars that I personally don't wish to support. I don't want to be the world's watchdog.

Also, I wouldn't call that "anarchy's downfall." Rather, I'd call it one small reason for wanting to keep a bit of forced government left.

I think that gvg's tendency toward supporting direct democracy for declaring war has to do with the phrase: Rich man's war, poor man's fight. Which is the general tendency of wars. The rich power brokers decide to go to war for one reason or another, but it's the poor masses that form the bulk of the army. In many cases, the people deciding to go to war have no family members in the armed forces or any personal connection to them, so they might agree to fight a war unnecessarily since it will be no skin off their nose... It's a tough call to know who would be best to decide this sort of thing since you would hope that the representatives making the decisions and such would be better informed, but the problem often is that they don't actually know much more than the people they represent. So it's sort of six of one, half-dozen of the other on things like declaring war.

[gvg]

That's one reason, yes.

[Guest]

Well then, tell me what powers you would be OK with the government having, and we'll work from there.

Well, on the subject of wars and taxation, perhaps only a defense/security tax. If a government is going to protect peoples' property and be able to prosecute murderers' then it will need some money to do that with. Of course, some people would rather just defend themselves rather than pay for police, so I would probably end up making such a tax optional and throw in something saying that if you don't pay the tax then the government won't protect your rights. If someone were to burn down your house or steal from you or shoot you, then the government wouldn't use their law enforcement to help stop it, etc. So if you want the government's security, you would have to choose to pay the tax for it.

As for the war aspect, I wouldn't want there to be a required tax in which people would have to support a military allowed to fight foreign wars. If the country was invaded then that would be fine for the government military/security to fight to stop it, because that is in the name of defense. But, there would not be any required taxes for a military that could decide (based on democratic vote or based on anything else without the individual's consent) to go wage a war in Afghanistan or Iraq, etc. The government could still have a military that could fight such wars, but I wouldn't support having the government be able to tax people against their will to support such things.

I probably would not support many mandatory taxes at all though. As I said, I might not support any: The law enforcement / security tax could be made voluntary and still work fine.

Powers that I would support the government having against some peoples' consent would be the power to create certain laws (not in the area of taxation/spending) that would designate geographical areas as "public" land that is not to be inhabited by humans, e.g. Yellow Stone National Park. I of course would make sure that the government couldn't just declare a person's private property as public land. It would be fine to make an agreement with the individual and buy the land to make it public property, but in that case we would have to make sure that all of the government money being paid to the individual was voluntarily given up. In other words, I wouldn't support the government taxing people to get money to buy land with.

I would want to keep things like Fire Stations private, or at least, voluntarily public. In other words, there could be a government program for fire stations, but it would not be allowed to tax people against their wills. So, it would essentially be a voluntary program that people could choose to pay for and receive the services of and other people could choose not to pay for and not receive the services of. I imagined private organizations like these in a world of anarchy. In a libertarian society, I would be fine with them being formed by the "government" as long as they remained optional and did not require that individuals pay for them against their will.

For schools, roads, and everything else, I would probably only support an optional tax to support such things. In order to make these programs function, you could form them in such a way that individuals wouldn't be allowed to receive the benefits of the program unless you pay the taxes for them.

I can easily imagine roads becoming a government monopoly on the industry and I could thus imagine having trouble with such a road program, but at the same time I think such a road program could be devised that it would be efficient and worth supporting. Our current system functions pretty well, I don't know too much about it. But, I would want to make sure that if an individual wanted to use the roads, but didn't want to have a road built over blah river, etc, then that individual should have a choice on taxes so that he can still use roads without having to pay for the construction of new roads over rivers, etc.

[gvg]

Again, you are leaving out those that are not able to pay. Those that want the service, but because it isn't EVERYONE (as with taxation) they can't afford it. Those in poverty. That is what mandatory taxes are for.

[Guest]

Well, on the subject of wars and taxation, perhaps only a defense/security tax. If a government is going to protect peoples' property and be able to prosecute murderers' then it will need some money to do that with. Of course, some people would rather just defend themselves rather than pay for police, so I would probably end up making such a tax optional and throw in something saying that if you don't pay the tax then the government won't protect your rights. If someone were to burn down your house or steal from you or shoot you, then the government wouldn't use their law enforcement to help stop it, etc. So if you want the government's security, you would have to choose to pay the tax for it.

As for the war aspect, I wouldn't want there to be a required tax in which people would have to support a military allowed to fight foreign wars. If the country was invaded then that would be fine for the government military/security to fight to stop it, because that is in the name of defense. But, there would not be any required taxes for a military that could decide (based on democratic vote or based on anything else without the individual's consent) to go wage a war in Afghanistan or Iraq, etc. The government could still have a military that could fight such wars, but I wouldn't support having the government be able to tax people against their will to support such things.

I probably would not support many mandatory taxes at all though. As I said, I might not support any: The law enforcement / security tax could be made voluntary and still work fine.

Powers that I would support the government having against some peoples' consent would be the power to create certain laws (not in the area of taxation/spending) that would designate geographical areas as "public" land that is not to be inhabited by humans, e.g. Yellow Stone National Park. I of course would make sure that the government couldn't just declare a person's private property as public land. It would be fine to make an agreement with the individual and buy the land to make it public property, but in that case we would have to make sure that all of the government money being paid to the individual was voluntarily given up. In other words, I wouldn't support the government taxing people to get money to buy land with.

I would want to keep things like Fire Stations private, or at least, voluntarily public. In other words, there could be a government program for fire stations, but it would not be allowed to tax people against their wills. So, it would essentially be a voluntary program that people could choose to pay for and receive the services of and other people could choose not to pay for and not receive the services of. I imagined private organizations like these in a world of anarchy. In a libertarian society, I would be fine with them being formed by the "government" as long as they remained optional and did not require that individuals pay for them against their will.

For schools, roads, and everything else, I would probably only support an optional tax to support such things. In order to make these programs function, you could form them in such a way that individuals wouldn't be allowed to receive the benefits of the program unless you pay the taxes for them.

I can easily imagine roads becoming a government monopoly on the industry and I could thus imagine having trouble with such a road program, but at the same time I think such a road program could be devised that it would be efficient and worth supporting. Our current system functions pretty well, I don't know too much about it. But, I would want to make sure that if an individual wanted to use the roads, but didn't want to have a road built over blah river, etc, then that individual should have a choice on taxes so that he can still use roads without having to pay for the construction of new roads over rivers, etc.

I would like to point out that your system creates a worse bureaucracy than what already exists. It also doesn't protect people who do pay for the protection.

Police Dispatcher: John Doe is reporting a B&E at 123 Abacus Place. Is he on the approved list?

Police Database Mgr: Let me check...Which John Doe? We have two dozen covered in the precinct and another 40 who aren't.

The private fire thing has been tried in the past. That's how it worked in Great Britain back in the day. You had to pay the private service to get fire insurance. If your neighbor didn't get insurance, the fire fighters either wouldn't respond or they would just sit there, waiting for the conflagration to move to a house that was covered. Which is a monumentally stupid policy since you can prevent the fire from spreading if you just put out the fire regardless of who's property it's on. It's much more efficient for everyone involved to pay into the system ahead of time so that they can receive the service when required without having to "clear" it with some bureaucracy.

As another example, what is a patrolling police officer supposed to do if he witnesses an mugging in progress:

Officer: What's your name? Have you paid your police insurance tax?

Victim: Does it really matter? Please help--UGH! *slumps*

You might suggest receiving a bill after the fact if you didn't pay the tax, but that's what happens with emergency rooms right now, and it is a common cause of bankruptcy in this country. People who are treading water financially, slip under when an unexpected illness or accident send them to the emergency room and they have no insurance or are under-insured. These aren't the unemployed either. That's in part what Michael Moore's "Sicko" was about. I admit the movie did gloss over some problems with other health systems, but I do think that it does a very good job of showing that our health system is patently broken and need(ed/s) fixing.

That's the benefit of a socialized system. People pay in a small portion of their income and then they receive the benefits when they need it with little hassle because everyone is covered. There's no question of "will someone be able to pay for it" because everyone already has done so.

Got to go so I apologize for any typos or ambiguities in the above post.

[Guest]

Again, you are leaving out those that are not able to pay. Those that want the service, but because it isn't EVERYONE (as with taxation) they can't afford it. Those in poverty. That is what mandatory taxes are for.

I realize that and I disagree with you. I still do not support mandatory taxes of that nature. Stealing from the rich and giving to the poor is not my idea of how to move society forward and it is certainly not my idea of justice. On the other hand, I would be happy to see people be charitable. If they don't want to give to the poor though, that doesn't make it right to force them to anyways. Don't work for them if you see them as dishonest, selfish rich people. I don't know what area of the world you live in, but in my experiences in life, people have been generous enough.

Edited July 28, 2010 by Use the Force

[gvg]

I live in the US (the easetrn half specifically), as you do. And I know that the motto for US capitalism is: THE ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS.

Does this seem particularly generous to you? Lower classes work, and most of the money goes to a select few. Something like 2% of the pop. has 85% of the wealth. And what do they do? Make sure that they get more money. Humans are naturally greedy and selfish unless taught otherwise. Natural instinct tells us to watch out for ourselves, and unless TAUGHT otherwise, that's what we do. Those in power use it to their advantage. Many (not all, but many) are ruthless in doing so.

Plus, humans are stupid. Period. They make major mistakes all the time. Housing crisis, economic collapse. And don't get me started on the crash of '29. We need a strong force to guide us, and that force needs money to sustain it.

And that's another thing: If you want a government of some sort, it needs money. Where will this money come from without taxes? And if you say no government, no taxes, people will be generous enough, who will sort out the money to where it needs to go? Who will stop people from taking what they think is theirs? What about the scammers?

I have no grudge against the rich personally, just as a group. I know some snobby, rich 'I'm better than you' types, I know some who understand that they are rich but are nice and non-abusive, and I know some people who hate that they are rich, and hate being judged based on their wealth.

If people are as generous as you say, the they will have no problem giving up their taxes to help their fellow man.

Would it make you feel better if for each 1.5% a person or family donates, their taxes go down 1%? Through this, those taxes you hate can be eliminated. The rich can decide to go the way of the charity (which by the way helps more freeloaders than taxes, universal health care and the like do).

[Guest]

I would like to point out that your system creates a worse bureaucracy than what already exists. It also doesn't protect people who do pay for the protection.

Again, why do you make so many assumptions about the limited government I am saying I support?

Are you the liberal or the libertarian? I thought the pink handwriting was liberal so if you're indeed the libertarian, I think you ought to reconsider what you call yourself.

Police Dispatcher: John Doe is reporting a B&E at 123 Abacus Place. Is he on the approved list?

Police Database Mgr: Let me check...Which John Doe? We have two dozen covered in the precinct and another 40 who aren't.

The private fire thing has been tried in the past. That's how it worked in Great Britain back in the day. You had to pay the private service to get fire insurance. If your neighbor didn't get insurance, the fire fighters either wouldn't respond or they would just sit there, waiting for the conflagration to move to a house that was covered. Which is a monumentally stupid policy since you can prevent the fire from spreading if you just put out the fire regardless of who's property it's on. It's much more efficient for everyone involved to pay into the system ahead of time so that they can receive the service when required without having to "clear" it with some bureaucracy.

As another example, what is a patrolling police officer supposed to do if he witnesses an mugging in progress:

Officer: What's your name? Have you paid your police insurance tax?

Victim: Does it really matter? Please help--UGH! *slumps*

You might suggest receiving a bill after the fact if you didn't pay the tax, but that's what happens with emergency rooms right now, and it is a common cause of bankruptcy in this country. People who are treading water financially, slip under when an unexpected illness or accident send them to the emergency room and they have no insurance or are under-insured. These aren't the unemployed either. That's in part what Michael Moore's "Sicko" was about. I admit the movie did gloss over some problems with other health systems, but I do think that it does a very good job of showing that our health system is patently broken and need(ed/s) fixing.

That's the benefit of a socialized system. People pay in a small portion of their income and then they receive the benefits when they need it with little hassle because everyone is covered. There's no question of "will someone be able to pay for it" because everyone already has done so.

In that first hypothetical conversation, you seem to be imagining a city, whereas I'm imagining a more rural town like the one I live in. In a rural setting, I don't think that the problems you are saying there would be in a system with a limited government would be major at all. In a city, though, I can definitely see your point. What do you do when you're living in a dense city and half of your neighbors don't have any insurance? One thing I can think of that might help this situation would be to make it public information whether you choose to be a part of various government programs. In this way, you will be able to know the circumstance of your neighbors and vice versa. Perhaps you could also just fragment the government down into smaller areas. Divide up the city into regions and allow the residents of each region decide whether they wish to pay for other peoples' fire insurance, etc. In this way, a patrolling law enforcer or a neighbor calling in a fire would still work fine without all of the "checks" with the bureaucracy, as you say. All that would have to be known would be the insurance status of the general area. This option would be better for the rich person who doesn't want everything to be liberalized because he won't have to pay for other parts of the city, but rather, everything will be going to his immediate surroundings so as to make it easier to respond to a fire at his house or react to a mugging at the end of his street. Also, I have little doubt that freeing up gun laws and making stricter punishments for burglaries, etc, would act as a deterrent. Who would try to mug someone or rob a house if he knew that the victim was legally allowed to shoot and kill the criminal? Certainly fewer people, and if someone was willing to stoop to the level of a petty thief then I see little reason to want to keep them alive.

As for the fire thing happening in England, I certainly wouldn't mind paying to put out a fire at my neighbor's house (who didn't pay for the fire insurance) if that would prevent my house from catching on fire. Thus, I most certainly would get to know my neighbors and make sure that if my house is close to theirs (like it probably would be in a city) then they agree to allowing my fire insurance to put out fires at their houses as well. Again, this might be an issue where fragmentation would help a lot.

As for the bill after the fact thing that causes employed people to go into bankruptcy with uninsured accidents, I see no reason why people wouldn't solve that voluntarily for their own benefits. If you can't afford the insurance, how likely is it that you're actually worth the cost of the bill? If you're young and yet to put your knowledge to work, then be sure to choose a business to work for that is smart enough to ensure you for the long term benefit that you can be to the company. If you're a poor, uneducated person trying to get a job and your employer doesn't want to pay for expensive insurance for you because he knows you're very easily replaceable, then that's unfortunate that nobody thinks you're valuable enough to take care of. If you're indeed not valuable enough, then why should society force taxpayers to support you anyways? That's a drag on society.

I understand that it is beneficial to society as a whole to save individuals the time and effort of forming agreements on every issue by creating a government that protects everybody and insures everybody, regardless of the fact that many of these protected/insured individuals may not produce anything. You may be helping out a few people you don't want to help, but it's worth it because you save the decent people the effort and energy of making sure they are always insured for everything they want to be insured for, etc. The reason I am more conservative than you, however, is because I think that I could set up a system in my community that would be more efficient for both my community and myself. I could find a way to insure the people in my community who I value without wasting my efforts supporting those that tend to drag. The idea behind the more conservative system is that there will be far more accountability because of the fact that nobody is guaranteed anything. I think it's best for a society to not guarantee that the people in it can survive with the necessary food and shelter and health care. Instead, give them protection so that they don't have to worry about fighting their fellow man, but instead only have to worry about fighting the natural fact that they need to produce to survive.

[Guest]

Would it make you feel better if for each 1.5% a person or family donates, their taxes go down 1%? Through this, those taxes you hate can be eliminated. The rich can decide to go the way of the charity (which by the way helps more freeloaders than taxes, universal health care and the like do).

You misinterpreted what I meant by "charity." I didn't mean giving my money away to the Salvation Army or Red Cross. I meant helping to pay for my coworker or neighbor's operation or helping to pay for his college education. People I know personally who I think are worth supporting.... Be generous to them.

As for your problem with rich people: You know, you don't have to work for a company owned by a rich man that you don't like. You might say, perhaps you're poor and struggling to get enough money to buy your meals. You need the rich man; he doesn't need you. Well, in reality, if the rich man is ripping you off, he needs you, not vice versa. Get everyone in your company who is getting ripped off by the wealthy owner of your company to agree to stop working if the owner of the company doesn't increase your pay. Such wealthy people who rip off their employees aren't reason to have a government regulate them. They should be reason to find a way to quit your job as soon as possible (along with the others who are being ripped off) and make sure to not let your next employer get to such a point. If you think your employer is ripping off any of of your co-workers, solve the problem right away, don't wait until your employer gets rich and thus powerful (because he out-produces the competition and gives the working class the choice to not have a job and not eat or else work for him and be ripped off). These are the only things that make people want to regulate. I don't think regulations are the answer though. I think every individual should themselves hold their employers accountable. If they're ripping you off, don't make a law saying you want a certain minimum wage. Rather, don't work for them and spread the word to get everybody else who is getting ripped off by them to not work for them. And don't be forgiving when they lose their employees and say "Oh okay, I'll give you more pay." Make them pay for ripping you off in the first place. Don't buy the products or services of the companies that rip of their employees, even if they manage to make their products cheaper. You don't have to be a genius to realize and do all of these things; you just can't be an idiot. And I don't think that the vast majority of Americans are idiots. I think they're smart enough to solve such problems by themselves as soon as you get rid of all of the cluttered regulations. Form an organization that sheds light on companies that rip of their employees, etc. Don't buy the products from large companies that aren't open to the examinations of such organizations. If you are doubtful that they treat their employees fairly then don't contribute to their wealth by buying their products. Governments try to form laws to regulate to regulate thousands of businesses. Many of the regulations apply to businesses and people who they weren't meant to apply to. Even things as simple as driver's licenses. Is it really necessary that I get approved for a driver's license? No, but the government passes a law requiring that everyone goes through a process (that costs money) to make sure that there aren't reckless drivers. Why not just severely punish reckless driving and forget about the licenses? In my community I might support that. I want a smaller government because governments are inefficient. They put laws on everybody that are only meant to correct the actions of few. I don't like this. I think it would be better to have a system of accountability, both for individuals towards themselves and towards their employers, etc. When you see a tough situation for an individual, you tend to want a law to prevent people from putting such people in such positions. On the other hand, I tend to want to make sure that I don't support such people who would put such other people in such positions. The masses can change their circumstances without such laws. Just change their actions to hold others accountable, and in the end there will be a fairer, wealthier world. Sorry for the long, non-concise paragraph. Hopefully you now understand my view: There are two views on the best way to make the world fairer: Create laws to make it illegal to be unfair or take matters into your own hands by not supporting those who are unfair to others and by supporting those who are fair to others.

[gvg]

I see your point. The thing is, basically every single corporation America is doing something evil, like child labor in other countries, to get ahead. Thus, we would have to stay away from almost all of them, leaving only small businesses, which might not have enough jobs for everyone. Thus, an unfortunate group will be stuck with dealing with the lesser of evils. What is going to protect them? And what about those who can't leave because they aren't qualified for anything else at the moment? That isn't only the uneducated, I'm talking about the teenage workers just getting into the business world.

And many people outside of the company wouldn't really care, as long as they got the product. For example, a group of rich people, or middle class, or whatever, outside of that particular business, will buy the product anyway. You think that a majority of Americans would stop buying McDonald's because of some sort of strike? It's unskilled labor, so the old workers would soon be replaced by other people who needed the money and/or didn't know about the previous mistreatments (at this point the leader of the corporation would have given this group what the last group had wanted to avoid another mass quiting), and life would go on for the company. The guy would still get rich in an unfair way. Also, mistreating you means that the boss knows that you can be replaced easily, otherwise he'd be more afraid. That's why it's harder to mistreat people in a profession in the sciences or whatnot: These people have trained, and are thus very valuable. And notice: what corporation is based around a science (that isn't BS)? Exactly.

I have no problem with all rich, that's not what I meant by 'group.' I have a problem with the rich who get what they have through unfair ways. I'm not for the poor, only those that work hard and try to do something with their lives. I'm for hard work. In my eyes, if you work hard, you deserve more money. That's why I'm for big government: it helps those who work hard, and while there will be an occasional freeloader, 'evil' rich man or whatnot getting through, that will happen in every government system (well, except communism, but that's another monster).

And this is probably random, but I'm pretty sure that you're ideas are liberal, just in a different direction then mine. (Liberal means change. I want change towards the big government spectrum, you want change towards the small government spectrum). I could be wrong though.

[Guest]

I see your point. The thing is, basically every single corporation America is doing something evil, like child labor in other countries, to get ahead. Thus, we would have to stay away from almost all of them, leaving only small businesses, which might not have enough jobs for everyone. Thus, an unfortunate group will be stuck with dealing with the lesser of evils. What is going to protect them? And what about those who can't leave because they aren't qualified for anything else at the moment? That isn't only the uneducated, I'm talking about the teenage workers just getting into the business world.

And many people outside of the company wouldn't really care, as long as they got the product. For example, a group of rich people, or middle class, or whatever, outside of that particular business, will buy the product anyway. You think that a majority of Americans would stop buying McDonald's because of some sort of strike? It's unskilled labor, so the old workers would soon be replaced by other people who needed the money and/or didn't know about the previous mistreatments (at this point the leader of the corporation would have given this group what the last group had wanted to avoid another mass quiting), and life would go on for the company. The guy would still get rich in an unfair way. Also, mistreating you means that the boss knows that you can be replaced easily, otherwise he'd be more afraid. That's why it's harder to mistreat people in a profession in the sciences or whatnot: These people have trained, and are thus very valuable. And notice: what corporation is based around a science (that isn't BS)? Exactly.

I have no problem with all rich, that's not what I meant by 'group.' I have a problem with the rich who get what they have through unfair ways. I'm not for the poor, only those that work hard and try to do something with their lives. I'm for hard work. In my eyes, if you work hard, you deserve more money. That's why I'm for big government: it helps those who work hard, and while there will be an occasional freeloader, 'evil' rich man or whatnot getting through, that will happen in every government system (well, except communism, but that's another monster).

And this is probably random, but I'm pretty sure that you're ideas are liberal, just in a different direction then mine. (Liberal means change. I want change towards the big government spectrum, you want change towards the small government spectrum). I could be wrong though.

In the political world, to want a smaller government is to be conservative; it does not mean to be liberal because you're "changing" from a larger government. I could be wrong too, but I don't think I am.

I don't know what you mean by a corporation based around a science.

I still don't support government regulating these unfair companies. They're regulations sometimes apply to things they aren't meant to apply to or shouldn't apply to. What if I want to hire someone, but for a job that isn't worth minimum wage? What do I do? Why should I have to check with a government to get permission to hire someone?

The problems could be solved without government regulation if individuals took matters into their own hands. Sadly if much of the masses are too stupid to do that, then the individuals who do make wise decisions about who they support and who they won't will still possible have a difficult time finding a job with fair pay. But, this still doesn't mean we should force companies to treat their employees what our government deems fair. Individuals should be able to agree on what is fair on their own. The extreme my way is anarchy and the extreme your way is socialism and communism where the government decides that a fair price for a bicycle created by this guy of this type is $320. It's illegal to sell it for any more than that because then you'd be ripping off the consumer. You also have to pay the guy who builds the bike a certain amount or else you're ripping him off. Make laws for all of these things and the world will be fair, but it will also be very regulated and inefficient.