@ineptsegue If you strip politicians of their power, they can not play favorites and benefit their friends. There are no conflicts of interest, everything would be through voluntary cooperation. Private interests don't have abusive power because they are in business because of the people, they can only get power government gives to them (favors).
@ineptsegue I'm not sure how else to explain it. Beingism says that checks and balances and "transparent government" can hold governments accountable, but such a proposition is frankly laughable. It also says that there are always "institutions with power" and presuppose that a threat of violence is somehow part of that. The power of persuasion and the power of threating are completely different, and the vid justifies the existence of one with the other.
@ineptsegue You see, neither do I. Power should be given to no one. No one has a right to order anyone around. The only actions that are valid between any two parties are those based off of mutual consent. Any nonsocialist republic inevitably is run by private interests, because there will always be a fortune to be made in lobbying the government. This would be impossible in any society based on free associations of people, no laws, gov. policies, or power to cede.
In the end, what the people want never has, and never will dictate what those in power do. No matter what the people want, if a society is approaching a level of prosperity, freedom, and free thought that causes the people to question why they need a monopoly on the use of violence to protect them, the state has no other option but to impose new programs on the backs of such a society. What happens is never necessarily what the people want. Read the history of any historical prosperous empire.
@CausalCrunch Hell yeah! Actually, I think the defense budget in the US has gradually DECREASED relative to total expenditure - but don't quote me on that. Anyway, national defense is one of the few things that we kinda need government for - I mean, as far as I know, nobody has come up with a really workable non-governmental alternative.
@JohnColt Right, because there would be dangerous conflicts of interest. Just like in other areas. There are dangerous conflicts of interest when private companies insure your or my health. There are dangerous conflicts of interest when private companies drill for oil off our countries shore and therefore have to decide between safety and profits when deciding which drilling procedures to use. There are also dangers when private companies have monopolies over critical human resources.
@JohnColt I think you're right about military spending. However, you must put it in context. When one country spends more than half of the global total expenditure on the military, it has some room to shrink without being meaningfully smaller (currently we've come down to a bit less than half).
@Beingism It's not that the people, by supporting government programs, make government grow; it's that government is a particular kind of institution with its own dynamic, part of which is a tendency towards growth. And the evidence is...er...self evident.
@Beingism Obviously I failed to make myself clear. Government expands. It makes no difference what the "system" is (what do you even mean by that?). Government expands because it is in the interest of politicians to increase their power, and because as long as there is government, special interest groups will be there to bribe it.
@JohnColt Some governments work better than others. A well functioning government—say, one with methods for identifying and reducing waste, or one where politicians are not beholden to powerful financial institutions—would not necessarily expand. Nor do all aspects of the U.S. government constantly expand.
@Beingism Now you sound like a typical libertarian. :D
The standard libertarian view is that government should be limited to upholding the law and defending the nation - providing courts, police, and military. As you say, currently the US government IS beholden to special interest groups.
@JohnColt We're not often accused of that! Obviously we oppose the waste, corruption, and corporate control over government that are so normal in many governments, but we have no problem with uses for government that actually benefit people. In fact, we think such uses for government are really, really important. That's where we diverge from the normal libertarian position.
@Beingism In other words you support H.E.W. That is a complicated issue, so again I recommend you read The Machinery of Freedom by David Friedman.
The thing about social programs is that they are based on noble ideals - helping the poor, providing healthcare for all etc - but in practice these programs fail to achieve these goals; they tend to do more harm than good.
@JohnColt Sorry, but the only "evidence" to support that assertion is the wishful thinking of libertarians. The idea that government (but not, for some reason, private institutions) is inherently impotent is totally arbitrary, and no one but a minority of extremists takes it seriously.
@Beingism LOL... now you're getting back to mister big head myth-buster mode :D The efficacy of HEW has been debated among serious economists for decades. Milton Friedman, (Nobel prize winner and generally regarded as the most influential economist of the second half of the 20th century) for one, was strongly opposed to HEW. And there is a great wealth of evidence that HEW is unhelpful, as well as very sophisticated, highly plausible arguments in favour of eliminating government ENTIRELY.
@JohnColt We know who Friedman is, and you shouldn't assume that our viewpoint matches with HEW, even if HEW is without any doubt much better than nothing. In practice, there will almost certainly continue to be imperfections (at best) in government so long as democratic republics remain the governments of choice in the world, and anarcho-capitalist utopia will remain a dream—one without a shred of evidence supporting the idea that it would benefit people, mind you.
@Beingism "better than nothing"? The libertarian view is not that there should be "nothing". Compassion is great, helping people is great, and private charities are fantastic. As I said to CausalCrunch - would you rather leave a legacy to Help The Aged or H.E.W?
By all means, let's help the poor... but we don't need the government to do it for us (with other people's money).
@JohnColt Private charity isn't getting the job done. We also take issue with this notion that private charities use legitimately earned wealth and the government works with "other people's money." See Myth: It’s always wrong to take property or wealth from people who have it. You can read this Myth directly at beingism [dot] org/community/?q=node/13
@Beingism But HEW isn't getting the job done either! What charities do, they do far better than any ministry. So, it's the charity sector that should expand, and government that should reduce. And if government pulls out of HEW then it stands to reason that charities will step up - even you nice people could do your bit.
As for your other-people's-money "myth", your argument is just Marxism, and Marx is about as relevant to current economics as Freud is to current Psychology.
@JohnColt Just how do you propose to motivate people to donate more? Your notion of charities as more effective is not evidence-based, and anyway, HEW is far from the be all and end all of government.
Your attempt to equate our argument with Marx is basically reductio ad absurdum. I could just as (il)logically equate yours with Ayn Rand, who is about as relevant to current economics as a monkey is to a barnyard. For that matter, anarcho-capitalism is irrelevant to modern mainstream economics.
@Beingism Charities, which have to COMPETE for our money, are constantly innovating their fund raising methods; government has theft to fall back on. But just as HEW isn't the whole issue, nor is charity. This is a complex issue. If you really want answers to your questions, start by reading the book I suggested :)
Sorry if I'm not mainstream enough enough for you, but at least D Friedman is alive and well; Marxism fell with the Berlin wall.
@JohnColt Addressed here: Myth: All (or virtually all) important goals in society can be addressed by the profit motive.
We don't care how mainstream you are, but you might consider that economists don't take anarcho-capitalism seriously. Meanwhile, just because (from the far right) you can spot similarities in our viewpoint with Marx doesn't mean you can equate our views. Marx understood that market distribution isn't always right by definition. So do we. So do mainstream economists.
@JohnColt Expansions not necessarily a problem. If it's for useful purposes. Maybe they're finding more useful purposes? Of course, I wouldn't agree with all the military spending as being particularly useful. I'm cool with healthcare, education, and infrastructure though.
A little old lady tells you that when she dies she's going to leave all her money to Amnesty International, The Red Cross, and a local charity in her town that helps young mums. How would you react?
Now imagine that a little old lady says that when she dies she's going to leave all her money to the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Now how would you react?
@JohnColt I'd respect either decision, although I miss the point. Although, the way the money from any large estate is USUALLY distributed isn't for the common good, but rather it is given to heirs.
@JohnColt I can agree with you to control the WAY in which it expands. I wouldn't want wasteful spending, who would. But I actually think the government could be doing a lot more for society than it currently does. Stuff that the private sector can't accomplish as well. Although, I'd be happy with keeping the government the same size for quite a while if we can just transition much of the DOD budget to other useful purposes.
@CausalCrunch We can't control "the way" government expands. Government isn't an entity in itself; it is made up of thousands of individuals, each pursuing their own interests. Governments inevitably expand - game theory, my friend, game theory.
There's nothing, except possibly national defense, that can't be done better by non-governmental means.
@JohnColt Yes, game theory. But this allows for what I'm speaking of. The way in which it grows includes the self interests of a lot of folks who don't wish for the system to be inefficient, and rally against 'waste and fraud.' These become rallying cries in both parties. Indeed, as I've mentioned folks like this cause the system to have to self correct when inefficiency becomes to great. No, it's not perfect, but neither are bloated private companies that become inefficient.
@JohnColt And yes, there will be waste and fraud. But, there will also be politically pressured slashing of that waste and fraud every few years (as the population pushes for it.) After all, cutting waste and fraud has shown to be a popular rallying cry for both Dems/Repubs. Yes, overall it may grow (which might be a good thing), let's just make sure it's the right type of growth.
@CausalCrunch I should point out that as a percentage of our GDP, the government is actually smaller than it has been at times in the past. In 1962, we were at 18.8% of GDP, as of 2001 we were at 18.4%. But it does fluctuate up and down. There's a website from the CBO (the non-partisan congressional budget office) with these stats.
Their projections on their website don't look so great, but they are just projections. None-the-less, we must find a way to avoid their conclusions.
@ineptsegue what? youre alive? oh yea probably from my money and welfare. go get aids, i dont listen to collectivist puke
AroundSun 1 year ago
tell this little collectivist clown to go kill himself
AroundSun 1 year ago
@ineptsegue If you strip politicians of their power, they can not play favorites and benefit their friends. There are no conflicts of interest, everything would be through voluntary cooperation. Private interests don't have abusive power because they are in business because of the people, they can only get power government gives to them (favors).
AroundSun 1 year ago
@ineptsegue I'm not sure how else to explain it. Beingism says that checks and balances and "transparent government" can hold governments accountable, but such a proposition is frankly laughable. It also says that there are always "institutions with power" and presuppose that a threat of violence is somehow part of that. The power of persuasion and the power of threating are completely different, and the vid justifies the existence of one with the other.
Skyler827 1 year ago
@ineptsegue You see, neither do I. Power should be given to no one. No one has a right to order anyone around. The only actions that are valid between any two parties are those based off of mutual consent. Any nonsocialist republic inevitably is run by private interests, because there will always be a fortune to be made in lobbying the government. This would be impossible in any society based on free associations of people, no laws, gov. policies, or power to cede.
Skyler827 1 year ago
In the end, what the people want never has, and never will dictate what those in power do. No matter what the people want, if a society is approaching a level of prosperity, freedom, and free thought that causes the people to question why they need a monopoly on the use of violence to protect them, the state has no other option but to impose new programs on the backs of such a society. What happens is never necessarily what the people want. Read the history of any historical prosperous empire.
Skyler827 1 year ago
No evidence of government expansion? Er.... what about the fact that government is expanding? lol.
JohnColt 1 year ago
@JohnColt
Even when you subtract the department of defense?
CausalCrunch 1 year ago
@CausalCrunch Hell yeah! Actually, I think the defense budget in the US has gradually DECREASED relative to total expenditure - but don't quote me on that. Anyway, national defense is one of the few things that we kinda need government for - I mean, as far as I know, nobody has come up with a really workable non-governmental alternative.
JohnColt 1 year ago
@JohnColt Right, because there would be dangerous conflicts of interest. Just like in other areas. There are dangerous conflicts of interest when private companies insure your or my health. There are dangerous conflicts of interest when private companies drill for oil off our countries shore and therefore have to decide between safety and profits when deciding which drilling procedures to use. There are also dangers when private companies have monopolies over critical human resources.
CausalCrunch 1 year ago
@JohnColt I think you're right about military spending. However, you must put it in context. When one country spends more than half of the global total expenditure on the military, it has some room to shrink without being meaningfully smaller (currently we've come down to a bit less than half).
CausalCrunch 1 year ago
@JohnColt No, the expansion of government under one system does not imply that it must under other possible systems.
Beingism 1 year ago
@Beingism It's not that the people, by supporting government programs, make government grow; it's that government is a particular kind of institution with its own dynamic, part of which is a tendency towards growth. And the evidence is...er...self evident.
JohnColt 1 year ago
@JohnColt Refer to my previous comment.
Beingism 1 year ago
@Beingism Obviously I failed to make myself clear. Government expands. It makes no difference what the "system" is (what do you even mean by that?). Government expands because it is in the interest of politicians to increase their power, and because as long as there is government, special interest groups will be there to bribe it.
JohnColt 1 year ago
@JohnColt Some governments work better than others. A well functioning government—say, one with methods for identifying and reducing waste, or one where politicians are not beholden to powerful financial institutions—would not necessarily expand. Nor do all aspects of the U.S. government constantly expand.
Beingism 1 year ago
@Beingism Now you sound like a typical libertarian. :D
The standard libertarian view is that government should be limited to upholding the law and defending the nation - providing courts, police, and military. As you say, currently the US government IS beholden to special interest groups.
JohnColt 1 year ago
@JohnColt We're not often accused of that! Obviously we oppose the waste, corruption, and corporate control over government that are so normal in many governments, but we have no problem with uses for government that actually benefit people. In fact, we think such uses for government are really, really important. That's where we diverge from the normal libertarian position.
Beingism 1 year ago
@Beingism In other words you support H.E.W. That is a complicated issue, so again I recommend you read The Machinery of Freedom by David Friedman.
The thing about social programs is that they are based on noble ideals - helping the poor, providing healthcare for all etc - but in practice these programs fail to achieve these goals; they tend to do more harm than good.
JohnColt 1 year ago
@JohnColt Sorry, but the only "evidence" to support that assertion is the wishful thinking of libertarians. The idea that government (but not, for some reason, private institutions) is inherently impotent is totally arbitrary, and no one but a minority of extremists takes it seriously.
Beingism 1 year ago
@Beingism LOL... now you're getting back to mister big head myth-buster mode :D The efficacy of HEW has been debated among serious economists for decades. Milton Friedman, (Nobel prize winner and generally regarded as the most influential economist of the second half of the 20th century) for one, was strongly opposed to HEW. And there is a great wealth of evidence that HEW is unhelpful, as well as very sophisticated, highly plausible arguments in favour of eliminating government ENTIRELY.
JohnColt 1 year ago
@JohnColt We know who Friedman is, and you shouldn't assume that our viewpoint matches with HEW, even if HEW is without any doubt much better than nothing. In practice, there will almost certainly continue to be imperfections (at best) in government so long as democratic republics remain the governments of choice in the world, and anarcho-capitalist utopia will remain a dream—one without a shred of evidence supporting the idea that it would benefit people, mind you.
Beingism 1 year ago
@Beingism "better than nothing"? The libertarian view is not that there should be "nothing". Compassion is great, helping people is great, and private charities are fantastic. As I said to CausalCrunch - would you rather leave a legacy to Help The Aged or H.E.W?
By all means, let's help the poor... but we don't need the government to do it for us (with other people's money).
JohnColt 1 year ago
@JohnColt Private charity isn't getting the job done. We also take issue with this notion that private charities use legitimately earned wealth and the government works with "other people's money." See Myth: It’s always wrong to take property or wealth from people who have it. You can read this Myth directly at beingism [dot] org/community/?q=node/13
Beingism 1 year ago
@Beingism But HEW isn't getting the job done either! What charities do, they do far better than any ministry. So, it's the charity sector that should expand, and government that should reduce. And if government pulls out of HEW then it stands to reason that charities will step up - even you nice people could do your bit.
As for your other-people's-money "myth", your argument is just Marxism, and Marx is about as relevant to current economics as Freud is to current Psychology.
JohnColt 1 year ago
@JohnColt Just how do you propose to motivate people to donate more? Your notion of charities as more effective is not evidence-based, and anyway, HEW is far from the be all and end all of government.
Your attempt to equate our argument with Marx is basically reductio ad absurdum. I could just as (il)logically equate yours with Ayn Rand, who is about as relevant to current economics as a monkey is to a barnyard. For that matter, anarcho-capitalism is irrelevant to modern mainstream economics.
Beingism 1 year ago
@Beingism Charities, which have to COMPETE for our money, are constantly innovating their fund raising methods; government has theft to fall back on. But just as HEW isn't the whole issue, nor is charity. This is a complex issue. If you really want answers to your questions, start by reading the book I suggested :)
Sorry if I'm not mainstream enough enough for you, but at least D Friedman is alive and well; Marxism fell with the Berlin wall.
JohnColt 1 year ago
@JohnColt Addressed here: Myth: All (or virtually all) important goals in society can be addressed by the profit motive.
We don't care how mainstream you are, but you might consider that economists don't take anarcho-capitalism seriously. Meanwhile, just because (from the far right) you can spot similarities in our viewpoint with Marx doesn't mean you can equate our views. Marx understood that market distribution isn't always right by definition. So do we. So do mainstream economists.
Beingism 1 year ago
@JohnColt Expansions not necessarily a problem. If it's for useful purposes. Maybe they're finding more useful purposes? Of course, I wouldn't agree with all the military spending as being particularly useful. I'm cool with healthcare, education, and infrastructure though.
CausalCrunch 1 year ago
@CausalCrunch Here's a question for you:
A little old lady tells you that when she dies she's going to leave all her money to Amnesty International, The Red Cross, and a local charity in her town that helps young mums. How would you react?
Now imagine that a little old lady says that when she dies she's going to leave all her money to the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Now how would you react?
JohnColt 1 year ago
@JohnColt I'd respect either decision, although I miss the point. Although, the way the money from any large estate is USUALLY distributed isn't for the common good, but rather it is given to heirs.
CausalCrunch 1 year ago
@JohnColt I can agree with you to control the WAY in which it expands. I wouldn't want wasteful spending, who would. But I actually think the government could be doing a lot more for society than it currently does. Stuff that the private sector can't accomplish as well. Although, I'd be happy with keeping the government the same size for quite a while if we can just transition much of the DOD budget to other useful purposes.
CausalCrunch 1 year ago
@CausalCrunch We can't control "the way" government expands. Government isn't an entity in itself; it is made up of thousands of individuals, each pursuing their own interests. Governments inevitably expand - game theory, my friend, game theory.
There's nothing, except possibly national defense, that can't be done better by non-governmental means.
JohnColt 1 year ago
@JohnColt Yes, game theory. But this allows for what I'm speaking of. The way in which it grows includes the self interests of a lot of folks who don't wish for the system to be inefficient, and rally against 'waste and fraud.' These become rallying cries in both parties. Indeed, as I've mentioned folks like this cause the system to have to self correct when inefficiency becomes to great. No, it's not perfect, but neither are bloated private companies that become inefficient.
CausalCrunch 1 year ago
@JohnColt And yes, there will be waste and fraud. But, there will also be politically pressured slashing of that waste and fraud every few years (as the population pushes for it.) After all, cutting waste and fraud has shown to be a popular rallying cry for both Dems/Repubs. Yes, overall it may grow (which might be a good thing), let's just make sure it's the right type of growth.
CausalCrunch 1 year ago
@CausalCrunch I should point out that as a percentage of our GDP, the government is actually smaller than it has been at times in the past. In 1962, we were at 18.8% of GDP, as of 2001 we were at 18.4%. But it does fluctuate up and down. There's a website from the CBO (the non-partisan congressional budget office) with these stats.
Their projections on their website don't look so great, but they are just projections. None-the-less, we must find a way to avoid their conclusions.
CausalCrunch 1 year ago