special interests in socialism

[Immanuel Can]

they are, as you say, a necessary evil...mebbe we've gotten too comfortable with the necessary part and gotten too good at ignorin' the evil part

Nicely put.

[RCSaunders]

And yet, governments are a necessary evil.

I agree governments are inevitable so long as the societies of the world are populated with the indolent, ignorant, and superstitious who believe they have a right to a, "nice life," provided by someone else and believe a government is just the agency to provide it. Government certainly serves no positive purpose and has no power to provide anything except harm. Evil is never necessary.

[Immanuel Can]

And yet, governments are a necessary evil.

I agree governments are inevitable so long as the societies of the world are populated with the indolent, ignorant, and superstitious who believe they have a right to a, "nice life," provided by someone else and believe a government is just the agency to provide it.

Well, or people who want a national road system, or a policing, or electricity and water...Don't forget them.

[RCSaunders]

If anyone wants to be free, they can be, but like anything else, they never will be so long as they expect someone else (like some political or religious leader) or something else (like a government) to do it for them. Your Freedom Now.

The myth of the autonomous generalist.

You can be free! You can do EVERYTHING yourself.

Except for all the thing you need other people for.

A millionaire hardly does everything for himself and individualist have no trouble at all finding other producers to work and trade with. Why would you think the most able human beings in the world would be less sociable than all the second-hand statests and collectivists who can hardly sustain their own lives.

[RCSaunders]

And yet, governments are a necessary evil.

I agree governments are inevitable so long as the societies of the world are populated with the indolent, ignorant, and superstitious who believe they have a right to a, "nice life," provided by someone else and believe a government is just the agency to provide it.

Well, or people who want a national road system, or a policing, or electricity and water...Don't forget them.

No government has ever provided any of those things. Stealing money and using men with guns to force or pay others to produce something is actually slavery, not production. Edison and Tesla were providing electricity without government long before government confiscated that industry. Roads are still being privately built today (e.g. the Mass Pike was originally a private road and one of the largest highways in history was built in Brazil by a private business.) Water has always been able be provided without government.

But if you prefer to have the businesses that provide the products and services you like controlled by an agency that remains in business by means of coercive force, than enjoy the quality you can expect from government provided products. [In my last house I had two wells with 300 and 600 feet of water (picture two lakes that depth) respectively. I could have supplied the whole town. The government couldn't.

[Immanuel Can]

I agree governments are inevitable so long as the societies of the world are populated with the indolent, ignorant, and superstitious who believe they have a right to a, "nice life," provided by someone else and believe a government is just the agency to provide it.

Well, or people who want a national road system, or a policing, or electricity and water...Don't forget them.

No government has ever provided any of those things.

Yeah, they have. Sure, they got the money from taxation, but they put the project together...usually way over budget and inefficiently, but they did.

You've got to give them that much. But it ain't much.

[henry quirk]

Well, or people who want a national road system, or a policing, or electricity and water...Don't forget them.

No government has ever provided any of those things.

Yeah, they have. Sure, they got the money from taxation, but they put the project together...usually way over budget and inefficiently, but they did.

You've got to give them that much. But it ain't much.

they're just men, no different than you or me...they did nuthin' more than any comparable, similarly motivated, group of men could have done...they only did it more easily cuz we gifted them with certain powers, but they've done nuthin' better

[Skepdick]

A millionaire hardly does everything for himself

Imagine that. He hires people to govern his affairs.

and individualist have no trouble at all finding other producers to work and trade with.

But too many individualists have a bunch of organisational problems like coordination, division of labour, work scheduling, work prioritization.

So you know what they do to help them navigate around such things? They establish a governance hierarchy to help them govern themselves.

Why would you think the most able human beings in the world would be less sociable than all the second-hand statests and collectivists who can hardly sustain their own lives.

Why would you think I think that?

I am saying that EVEN the most able of human being in the world find governance useful. So useful, in fact, that they hire people to do it full time. Voluntarily.

Such hierarchies emerge naturally whenever humans cooperate.

But since the word "government" triggers you we don't have to call it that. Give it another name.

[Immanuel Can]

they're just men, no different than you or me...they did nuthin' more than any comparable, similarly motivated, group of men could have done...they only did it more easily cuz we gifted them with certain powers, but they've done nuthin' better

Right. The only thing government is valuable for is that it allows for bigger and more complex public projects. Not that it does them skillfully or efficiently, but some things just aren't small enough for local individuals to deal with. But nobody becomes magically good and virtuous by joining the government...if they're already good, they stay good; if not, it just makes them another "swamp dweller."

[Advocate]

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=477423 time=1603826657 user_id=9431]
[quote="henry quirk" post_id=477412 time=1603825441 user_id=472]
they're just men, no different than you or me...they did nuthin' more than any comparable, similarly motivated, group of men could have done...they only did it more [i]easily[/i] cuz we gifted them with certain powers, but they've done nuthin' [i]better[/i]
[/quote]
Right. The only thing government is valuable for is that it allows for bigger and more complex public projects. Not that it does them skillfully or efficiently, but some things just aren't small enough for local individuals to deal with. But nobody becomes magically good and virtuous by joining the government...if they're already good, they stay good; if not, it just makes them another "swamp dweller."
[/quote]

That's not what it does. The scale is a symptom of the efficiency collective action brings. If we both need shoes, it makes a great deal more sense for you to have the shoe-making equipment while i have the leather-making equipment instead of us both having to have both. Government exists precisely to balance natural dis-equilibriums which lead to self-perpetuating inequalities of worth v. reward and all the inherent problems that leads to. Operating at scale is a privilege of well-functioning societies.

[RCSaunders]

A millionaire hardly does everything for himself

Imagine that. He hires people to govern his affairs.

and individualist have no trouble at all finding other producers to work and trade with.

But too many individualists have a bunch of organisational problems like coordination, division of labour, work scheduling, work prioritization.

So you know what they do to help them navigate around such things? They establish a governance hierarchy to help them govern themselves.

Why would you think the most able human beings in the world would be less sociable than all the second-hand statests and collectivists who can hardly sustain their own lives.

Why would you think I think that?

I am saying that EVEN the most able of human being in the world find governance useful. So useful, in fact, that they hire people to do it full time. Voluntarily.

Such hierarchies emerge naturally whenever humans cooperate.

But since the word "government" triggers you we don't have to call it that. Give it another name.

This thread in under the category, "Political Philosophy." In that context, "government," means an agency with the exclusive perogative of using coercive force within geographical area. The is the only meaning of government I have addressed.

If you want to use, "government," to designate any form of hierarchy or business order or system of organization willingly entered into by all parties, "government," I have no objection. It's just not what I have been talking about. In practice, the organization of most corporations is a disaster (which is why so many end in bankruptcy), often because they buy into the last social (political) views and think they'll work in business. But that is a totally different question which is self-rectifying.

[RCSaunders]

Well, or people who want a national road system, or a policing, or electricity and water...Don't forget them.

No government has ever provided any of those things.

Yeah, they have. Sure, they got the money from taxation, but they put the project together...

They don't even do that. In most cases the, "project," is already chosen by some non-government agency or industry and "sold" to some politicians by lobbyists who manage to get it pushed through whatever bureaucracies are required to get the project financed (subsidized). You don't think senators, congressmen, judges, and the president could actually design anything, do you?

[Skepdick]

This thread in under the category, "Political Philosophy." In that context, "government," means an agency with the exclusive perogative of using coercive force within geographical area.

Exclusive perogative?

Have you been paying attention to human history for the last.... ever? Humans frequently resort to using coercive force - extremists, terrorists, rioters, political oppositions.

When two "exclusive perogatives" argue over whose exclusivity is more exclusive within a geographic area we call it "war". Nobody has a monopoly on violence because violence is democratized.

So... this "exclusivity" you speak of. How exactly is it bestowed or attained?

[Immanuel Can]

the efficiency collective action brings.

Oh, that's a hilarious phrase. Have you actually ever worked with the government? "Efficient" has nothing to do with what they do.

Classic.

If we both need shoes, it makes a great deal more sense for you to have the shoe-making equipment while i have the leather-making equipment instead of us both having to have both.

So? That's just division of labour. You don't need a government to decide that for you. All you have to see is that it makes sense for you and your neighbour to arrange things that way. Government's out of that loop.

Government exists precisely to balance natural dis-equilibriums which lead to self-perpetuating inequalities of worth v. reward and all the inherent problems that leads to.

Um...no. You've just made government the high moral arbitrator. That's one task for which they are untrustworthy and utterly, completely unsuited. I would barely trust them to pave my roads; I sure as heck would never let them tell me what I, or another person, is worth, or deserves, or how they can be treated.

Anyway, what "dis-equalibria"? And if, as you say, they're "natural," how can they be wrong? Where's this "worth" coming from? And who told you that "equality" is justice? It's not, you know. Finally, what "inherent problems"? I'm not giving you credit for anything as vague as that...you're going to have to say what you mean, not just take them for granted.

Or did you mean nothing at all there, except word-salad?

[Skepdick]

Oh, that's a hilarious phrase. Have you actually ever worked with the government? "Efficient" has nothing to do with what they do.

Classic.

Economies of scale is a thing.

One person with 100USD has more purchasing options than 10 people with 10USD each.

The most inefficient will still "outcompete" those who can't conquer the barrier to entry into a market.

That's why no "efficient private entity" got to space first.