Philosophy Now Forum

Certain ideas about government are necessary. Without "anything not explicitly forbidden to the people is allowed and anything not expressly granted to the government is forbidden", no State can survive. What are some other necessary maxims?

that government is best which governs least (or not at all)

government is a necessary evil (so keep it under heel)

when government fears the people, there is liberty (so keep government afraid)

...want more?

[quote="henry quirk" post_id=478356 time=1604413414 user_id=472]
that government is best which governs least (or not at all)

government is a necessary evil (so keep it under heel)

when government fears the people, there is liberty (so keep government afraid)

...want more?
[/quote]

I agree with all those, but i thought i covered that. Do you have any non-libertarian ones?

Do you have any non-libertarian ones?

nope: why would I?

Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 3:52 pm I agree with all those, but i thought i covered that. Do you have any non-libertarian ones?

Take the few data sources on government financials out there (IMF, World bank, budgets etc.). Use "government spending" as a proxy-metric for "government size".

Explain to me why there are almost no booming economies/prosperous countries where government size/spending is minimal.

Here's a summary: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/hist ... &time=2010

[quote=Skepdick post_id=478375 time=1604423769 user_id=17350]
[quote=Advocate post_id=478359 time=1604415147 user_id=15238]
I agree with all those, but i thought i covered that. Do you have any non-libertarian ones?
[/quote]
Take the few data sources on government financials out there (IMF, World bank, budgets etc.). Use "government spending" as a proxy-metric for "government size".

Explain to me why there are almost no booming economies/prosperous countries where government size/spending is minimal.

Here's a summary: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/hist ... &time=2010
[/quote]

Infrastructure is a social good and must be government-managed.

Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 6:51 pm Infrastructure is a social good and must be government-managed.

Which infrastructure? The banking and finance infrastructure, the medical textbook publication infratructure perhaps, or do you just mean roads and bridges?

Why must a government manage them? Sometimes governments aren't very efficient, and sometimes political concerns trump good management choices. Sometimes it is much better for government to contract out management of infrastructure such as airports, rather than have some toxic concoction of politicians and unions run them for the benefit of flag carrying state owned airlines for instance.

Ask any IT guy who has ever dealt with state monopoly telecoms companies (such as those utter bastards in Qatar) if he thinks society benefits from having competition in telecoms infrastucture. The opinions of Americans may not really count in this case I'm afraid, it's a bit ologopolistic over there.

[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=478412 time=1604431389 user_id=11800]
[quote=Advocate post_id=478387 time=1604425890 user_id=15238]
Infrastructure is a social good and must be government-managed.
[/quote]
Which infrastructure? The banking and finance infrastructure, the medical textbook publication infratructure perhaps, or do you just mean roads and bridges?

Why must a government manage them? Sometimes governments aren't very efficient, and sometimes political concerns trump good management choices. Sometimes it is much better for government to contract out management of infrastructure such as airports, rather than have some toxic concoction of politicians and unions run them for the benefit of flag carrying state owned airlines for instance.

Ask any IT guy who has ever dealt with state monopoly telecoms companies (such as those utter bastards in Qatar) if he thinks society benefits from having competition in telecoms infrastucture. The opinions of Americans may not really count in this case I'm afraid, it's a bit ologopolistic over there.
[/quote]

Government must manage them because the central role of the government is to be for the good of everyone, and the good of everyone includes both preventing extreme inequality and ensuring equal access to essentials. If every individual feels they have a life, not just survival, then the government's mandate is fulfilled. Afterward, the public can decide to grant additional authority.

Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 8:48 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 8:23 pm

Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 6:51 pm Infrastructure is a social good and must be government-managed.

Which infrastructure? The banking and finance infrastructure, the medical textbook publication infratructure perhaps, or do you just mean roads and bridges?

Why must a government manage them? Sometimes governments aren't very efficient, and sometimes political concerns trump good management choices. Sometimes it is much better for government to contract out management of infrastructure such as airports, rather than have some toxic concoction of politicians and unions run them for the benefit of flag carrying state owned airlines for instance.

Ask any IT guy who has ever dealt with state monopoly telecoms companies (such as those utter bastards in Qatar) if he thinks society benefits from having competition in telecoms infrastucture. The opinions of Americans may not really count in this case I'm afraid, it's a bit ologopolistic over there.

Government must manage them because the central role of the government is to be for the good of everyone, and the good of everyone includes both preventing extreme inequality and ensuring equal access to essentials. If every individual feels they have a life, not just survival, then the government's mandate is fulfilled. Afterward, the public can decide to grant additional authority.

That argument doesn't work very well. If a private company can manage a resource more efficiently than the state, or if competition between private companies can do so, then for the good of everyone, the government must not manage the resource in question.

[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=478428 time=1604433826 user_id=11800]
[quote=Advocate post_id=478422 time=1604432882 user_id=15238]
[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=478412 time=1604431389 user_id=11800]

Which infrastructure? The banking and finance infrastructure, the medical textbook publication infratructure perhaps, or do you just mean roads and bridges?

Why must a government manage them? Sometimes governments aren't very efficient, and sometimes political concerns trump good management choices. Sometimes it is much better for government to contract out management of infrastructure such as airports, rather than have some toxic concoction of politicians and unions run them for the benefit of flag carrying state owned airlines for instance.

Ask any IT guy who has ever dealt with state monopoly telecoms companies (such as those utter bastards in Qatar) if he thinks society benefits from having competition in telecoms infrastucture. The opinions of Americans may not really count in this case I'm afraid, it's a bit ologopolistic over there.
[/quote]

Government must manage them because the central role of the government is to be for the good of everyone, and the good of everyone includes both preventing extreme inequality and ensuring equal access to essentials. If every individual feels they have a life, not just survival, then the government's mandate is fulfilled. Afterward, the public can decide to grant additional authority.
[/quote]
That argument doesn't work very well. If a private company can manage a resource more efficiently than the state, or if competition between private companies can do so, then for the good of everyone, the government [b]must not[/b] manage the resource in question.
[/quote]

There's no technical difference between the structural efficiency of a state and a company except the incentives and the scale. Because of it's central position, a government can be more efficient or more <insert favourite form of evil here> than private entities.

the central role of the government is to be for the good of everyone

tell me, for a nation of 300 million plus, what's the good?

tell me, on a planet of 7 billion plus, what's the good?

-----

There's no technical difference between the structural efficiency of a state and a company except the incentives and the scale.

there's one helluva a big difference: I can choose, without major repercussions, to not do business with a company

I don't know of a single state for which you can say the same

Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 9:11 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 9:03 pm

Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 8:48 pm Government must manage them because the central role of the government is to be for the good of everyone, and the good of everyone includes both preventing extreme inequality and ensuring equal access to essentials. If every individual feels they have a life, not just survival, then the government's mandate is fulfilled. Afterward, the public can decide to grant additional authority.

That argument doesn't work very well. If a private company can manage a resource more efficiently than the state, or if competition between private companies can do so, then for the good of everyone, the government must not manage the resource in question.

There's no technical difference between the structural efficiency of a state and a company except the incentives and the scale. Because of it's central position, a government can be more efficient or more <insert favourite form of evil here> than private entities.

Companies are best run by concentrating on what they do well while outsourcing whatever is not core to their competence. Governments which apply similar principles are pretty efficient too. However you are proposing the exact opposite of that and just asserting that some organisation can by some unspecified means, just become good at everything, which seems unrealistic.

>tell me, for a nation of 300 million plus, what's [i]the good[/i]?

>tell me, on a planet of 7 billion plus, what's [i]the good[/i]?

To explore and develop your personality and circumstances.

>[b]There's no technical difference between the structural efficiency of a state and a company except the incentives and the scale.[/b]

>there's one helluva a big difference: I can choose, without major repercussions, to not do business with a company

>I don't know of a single state for which you can say the same

I said "no technical difference between the structural efficiency of" and you said "states suck". Whether or not it is optional is a different matter entirely. The state can be technically efficient at being fascist or at being utopian, whether or not you can opt out. But if it's really good for everyone it will provide a meaningful way to opt out as much as possible, because some people wouldn't care how good the state is, they would just want to do things their own way, and that's fine as long as it can be assured not to interfere with anyone else pursuing their own development.

[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=478434 time=1604435056 user_id=11800]
[quote=Advocate post_id=478430 time=1604434260 user_id=15238]
[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=478428 time=1604433826 user_id=11800]

That argument doesn't work very well. If a private company can manage a resource more efficiently than the state, or if competition between private companies can do so, then for the good of everyone, the government [b]must not[/b] manage the resource in question.
[/quote]

There's no technical difference between the structural efficiency of a state and a company except the incentives and the scale. Because of it's central position, a government can be more efficient or more <insert favourite form of evil here> than private entities.
[/quote]

Companies are best run by concentrating on what they do well while outsourcing whatever is not core to their competence. Governments which apply similar principles are pretty efficient too. However you are proposing the exact opposite of that and just asserting that some organisation can by some unspecified means, just become good at everything, which seems unrealistic.
[/quote]

Separate entities doing those things efficiently can still be less efficient than a centralized agency doing them less efficiency, it's called economics of scale, but you're ignoring incentives. The profit motive poisons everything it touches. It is literally incompatible with a) sustainability b) civilization.

Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 9:35 pm Separate entities doing those things efficiently can still be less efficient than a centralized agency doing them less efficiency, it's called economics of scale, but you're ignoring incentives. The profit motive poisons everything it touches. It is literally incompatible with a) sustainability b) civilization.

Then don't be motivated by profit.

Amazon hasn't turned a profit or paid dividends in 25 years. It's all re-invested towards new projects.

Jeff doesn't care about profit - he wants an empire.