Philosophy Now Forum

henry quirk wrote:It's your thread, conceptualizer: what is government's purpose?

In my opinion the role of government is to do things that can’t be done by smaller groups or would be better managed by the country as a whole. Some obvious examples: defence, equality, justice and restitution, standards, transport infrastructure and civil engineering. I can also see a role for disseminating advice based on the best available understanding, and for ‘persuasion’. For example, the UK the government has legislated against Tabaco advertising, actively advertised about its deleterious effects, and banned smoking in workplaces and indoor public spaces.

I'm sorry, it's not the function of government to give anybody advice on anything.

Concept,

Proxies can handle defense (local, regional, continental), justice and restitution (maintenance of contract), and transport infrastructure and civil engineering (roadways and minimal 'planning').

No need for 'governors'.


Equality and "justice" (social) are best left for individuals to sort out amongst themselves.


"disseminating advice": no thanks...I keep my own counsel.


I’m all for payin' for services rendered (that I contract for, that I use, that I want or need).

Not at all interested in payin’ for that which I didn't ask for, at prices I didn't agree to.

Sorry, but one size does not fit all.

The only proper function of government is social integration. Government should not own, operate, support or promote anything.

bobevenson wrote:I'm sorry, it's not the function of government to give anybody advice on anything.

The great thing about advice is that it is not coercion.
Having advice is empowering.
As we all know: knowledge is power.
One can follow it, do precisely the opposite, or recognise it is on an important enough subject to look into further.
It takes nothing from you and gives you something.
Also advice need not be pushed to you, you can go look at it if you want, or not.
I don't understand how can you object to that.

conceptualizer wrote:

bobevenson wrote:I'm sorry, it's not the function of government to give anybody advice on anything.

The great thing about advice is that it is not coercion.
Having advice is empowering.
As we all know: knowledge is power.
One can follow it, do precisely the opposite, or recognise it is on an important enough subject to look into further.
It takes nothing from you and gives you something.
Also advice need not be pushed to you, you can go look at it if you want, or not.
I don't understand how can you object to that.

I wouldn't ask anybody who works for a nonprofit organization such as the government for the time of day for fear of getting the wrong answer. These people don't understand what it is like to operate in a free market, where if you don't satisfy your customers, you go bankrupt. No matter how poorly the government performs, employees never worry about getting their next paycheck. Why on Earth would you want advice on anything from people who don't work under the discipline of a free-market?

henry quirk wrote:Proxies can handle defense (local, regional, continental), justice and restitution (maintenance of contract), and transport infrastructure and civil engineering (roadways and minimal 'planning').
...
Equality and "justice" (social) are best left for individuals to sort out amongst themselves.

You made a number of points. Just to take two of them which are related.
I think it is impossible in this time for a country to be adequately defended by militia. Forget running around with guns. Modern extremely powerful weapons are also extremely expensive and technically very complex. The only countries that still use the militia defence model are banana republics. Any country which depends on that model is a sitting duck for an aggressor country which has a monolithic military machine. It’s about marshalling resources and a having single strategy.
Large scale organised crime even crosses international boundaries to the extent that even governments cannot manage them and have created Interpol. This level of problem can only be tackled by an organisation with huge resources at its disposal. If large scale organised crime is not kept in check it will take over.

bobevenson wrote:

conceptualizer wrote:

bobevenson wrote:I'm sorry, it's not the function of government to give anybody advice on anything.

The great thing about advice is that it is not coercion.
Having advice is empowering.
As we all know: knowledge is power.
One can follow it, do precisely the opposite, or recognise it is on an important enough subject to look into further.
It takes nothing from you and gives you something.
Also advice need not be pushed to you, you can go look at it if you want, or not.
I don't understand how can you object to that.

I wouldn't ask anybody who works for a nonprofit organization such as the government for the time of day for fear of getting the wrong answer. These people don't understand what it is like to operate in a free market, where if you don't satisfy your customers, you go bankrupt. No matter how poorly the government performs, employees never worry about getting their next paycheck. Why on Earth would you want advice on anything from people who don't work under the discipline of a free-market?

First, I should say I share some of the concerns you have. Nonetheless, I am perhaps even less sanguine about taking advice from people trying to sell me their product or service. Unfortunately unless one happens to be omniscient one has to take some advice and start researching from there. So, to continue my earlier example, who are you going to trust for advice on smoking, the government or the cigarette companies? I hope this illustrates that a simplistic view of this is unhelpful.

conceptualizer wrote:So, to continue my earlier example, who are you going to trust for advice on smoking, the government or the cigarette companies?

My friend, there are far more channels of information than just the government and cigarette companies. Don't you think people have the ability to make their own decisions in life?

bobevenson wrote:

conceptualizer wrote:So, to continue my earlier example, who are you going to trust for advice on smoking, the government or the cigarette companies?

My friend, there are far more channels of information than just the government and cigarette companies. Don't you think people have the ability to make their own decisions in life?

I agree. There are other possible sources of information. However, all sources are getting paid in a free-market, or taking something from taxation, or are funded by gifts. Each funding model creates distortions and/or limitations in the information they offer.
Some things fall more naturally into the realm of government advice, but I am not saying all things. If for example I was looking for travel advice to an unstable country I would look at government recommendations. The Foreign Office has very long established resources permanently present in most countries and will be impartial with their advice. I would be nuts to trust a travel company to tell me if I should go. How else could I arrive at a reasonable conclusion?

Concept,

I said 'proxies', not "militia".

The plumber I hire is a professional; why shouldn't the peacekeeper be anything but a professional?

#

"Modern extremely powerful weapons are also extremely expensive and technically very complex."

Many are, but not all.

Also: many of these "modern extremely powerful weapons" are unnecessary. Just because a defense contractor says the latest 'Hellfire missile' is what a nation needs, doesn't make it so. The defense contractor is as liable to inflate the 'need' of 'this' or 'that' as the toothpaste manufacturer is to inflate the 'new and improved' paste. Both contractor and manufacturer want to make a profit. Marketing (lies, lies, damned lies!) is a means to that.

#

"If large scale organised crime is not kept in check it will take over."

Too late! It’s called 'government'...

conceptualizer wrote:

bobevenson wrote:

conceptualizer wrote:So, to continue my earlier example, who are you going to trust for advice on smoking, the government or the cigarette companies?

My friend, there are far more channels of information than just the government and cigarette companies. Don't you think people have the ability to make their own decisions in life?

I agree. There are other possible sources of information. However, all sources are getting paid in a free-market, or taking something from taxation, or are funded by gifts. Each funding model creates distortions and/or limitations in the information they offer.
Some things fall more naturally into the realm of government advice, but I am not saying all things. If for example I was looking for travel advice to an unstable country I would look at government recommendations. The Foreign Office has very long established resources permanently present in most countries and will be impartial with their advice. I would be nuts to trust a travel company to tell me if I should go. How else could I arrive at a reasonable conclusion?

There are a myriad number of organizations and groups that offer information on any topic you choose. Again, the government is absolutely the last source you should check on from an extremely long list of sources.