Democrats discover states' rights

[moda0306]

Benko,

Perhaps we have a miscommunication here.

First of all, I agree with you that photographers and bakers should be able to serve the customers they wish.  This is one area in which I'm quite conservative.

But the main issue is that simply by advocating for any government for any purpose at all, you are, by definition, forcing someone else to accept your beliefs about how things should be done.  It takes taxes to fund government, and police with guns to enforce laws, which means that even if all you want the government to do is military, police, judges, roads, and NASA, then I have to accept the authority of those agents, and pay taxes to pay their salary.

But if you want to transcend the "gun pointing" involved with all government and get into actual policy, I'd say a lot of bad republican policy is at the state/local level, but against people without the means to efficiently just pack up and move.  The idea that a cop could ask to see my ID on the street is asinine to me.  The idea that pollution can happen at such a rampant rate, and that any solution is "government-forced conservation" rather than a legitimate transfer of wealth based on socialized costs, is equally annoying.  Pot being illegal, police being over-bearing, our food being genetically modified (by the private sector with limited government interference)... to name a few more. But really, I'm not all that liberal.  I think most of the things that our government SHOULD do, it is already doing, or at least moving in the direction of doing.  Social safety nets could be stronger in some areas, but I think they are fine.  I just choose to debate those who would dismantle them, or wish to assert things about them that simply aren't true.  There are areas I'd even pull it back.  I think Medicare for all would be a superior healthcare system, but I think we've filled some of the holes relating to insurability... and I happen to think a lot of the Republican arguments around the healthcare market are utterly bogus.


And the reason I, personally, don't think there's much of a difference between parties is because they always change their tune when the other party is in office.  Obama wants to return taxes to Clinton levels, and levels lower than most of the 20th century, "he's a bleeding hear socialist."  A democratic congress enacts a health care law that is essentially what conservatives suggested (and Romney passed) in the 1990's and 2000's, respectively?  He's "taking over 1/6 of the economy."  Obama enacts a stimulus package filled with plentiful supply-side tax cuts and blank-check aid to local and state governments to direct, and "he's spending us into oblivion (never-mind the stimulus package is an infinitesimal amount of our current nat'l debt).  Libs go after Bush & the Iraq war to a much larger degree than they ever would have gone after one of their dems.  Republicans worry about the "forgotten middle class" and "high effective tax rates" and "too much government bureaucracy," but then want to means-test SS (beyond what it currently is), which would add a lot of complexity to it.

But all that is just details.  Government, by definition, governs over a region, and therefore consists of some people's views being enforced, at gunpoint, over other people's views.  Even if it is just to fund a military, and in some ways, ESPECIALLY so... if that military decides that I look like a good soldier .

[Mountaineer]

Benko, I sure hope you did not think I was taking a pot shot at you with my comment of "my belief is better than your belief".  I was trying to point out that we are all, me included, biased in our views whether we admit it or not.  And, for what It's worth, I generally align with your view of the situation.  In politics, I tend to think both parties are full of slime balls - power corrupts.  They are most all a bunch of narcissistic pricks led by the biggest one of all who currently occupies the WH.  I don't see how he can look at himself in the mirror - but that is just one sinner calling another sinner to task.  He probably would feel the same way about me if he knew me.  Honor and ethics are for text books - not politicians.

... Mountaineer

[Benko]

Tenn PA,

For any job applicant (including those running for president) the only criteria that matters is will they do the job effectively, at least I would have thought so.  At a minimum not being incompetent is a starter.  The two people under discussion are not the same on this basis.  The fact that

"it doesn't make much difference in the aggregate on people's day-to-day lives who the POTUS is"

Is true does not change this.  There are plenty of things that a president can do which will not have immediate implications but will have large consequences down the line.  Foreign policy is certainly one. Res ipsa loquitur.  Anyone giving an apology tour belongs as staff at Berkeley and not in the WH.  Also, while I ain't a neocon and my personal preferences are very non-interventional, I'm pretty sure that appearing weak and of questionable competence will be rewarded appropriately.  9/11 is coming up.

And how has the economy done? e.g. compared to other recoveries.

Granting amnesty to a whopping number of illegal aliens, which I hope doesn't happen, but which might (probably in the next week) is certainly another. 

"I think the attitude of "it doesn't matter" is a plus for the board because I think the WWE attitude (that there is one right way and anyone who disagrees is a neanderthal) is toxic to a community."

I didn't know those were the only two options.  Qualifications are qualifications.  There are reasons that in general governors are better qualified to be president and senators less qualified. 

Mountaineer,

No worries I didn't take it personally. 

[Benko]

Moda,

Thanks for the post on profits.  You do raise some good points. 

[Benko]

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is working to forge a sweeping international climate change agreement to compel nations to cut their planet-warming fossil fuel emissions, but without ratification from Congress.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/27/us/po ... .html?_r=0

By any means necessary.

Tell me Romney would have done this.  Tell me this will have no cost to avg people.

[TripleB]

Moda,

You mention many problems caused by monopolistic market power both explicitly and indirectly (e.g. the genetically modified food problem is caused by a Montsanto monopoly).

I propose that no monopolies can exist outside of government intervention. The free market won't allow it. I also propose that 99% of all problems Americans face with private companies are ones who have government-enabled monopolies or oligopolies.

Here's a list of companies/industries. Which ones receive the most complaints? Which ones are heavily regulated by government, which creates an oligopoly in the marketplace that prevents new competitors from entering?

1) Airlines - Delta, American Airlines, United, etc.
2) Cell Phone Companies - AT&T, TMobile, etc.
3) Utilities - Your Electric Company, Your Water Company, etc.
4) ISPs - Comcast, Time Warner, etc.
5) Automobile Manufacturers - Ford, Toyota, Honda
6) Computer Makers - Dell, Apple, etc.
7) Supermarkets - Whole Foods, Trader Joes, etc.
8 ) Fast Food Restaurants - McDonalds, Burger King, etc.

Now pick a list of your personal 3 most hated companies that you do business with. And summarize a business plan that would create an effective competitor. Can you form your competitor with simply financial capital and business acumen alone? Or is a key part of your business plan figuring out a way to secure government licensure, meet impossible government regulations, and lobby for political favor? Is it even possible to form your new business or did the government create an artificial restriction on how many businesses are allowed to exist in your industry (e.g. cell phone spectrum, water lines to houses, number of airports and size of airports, etc)?

The companies and industries most hated by consumers are ones that consumers have no choice in using because the government will not allow competition. Paradoxically, the stated reason for government inhibiting competition is to protect against monopolistic exploitation of consumers.

I also propose that this is purely a Liberal/Left-Wing created problem because Conservatives/Right-Wingers typically argue to deregulate industries.

[Benko]

TennPA,

1.  What criteria would you use for hiring anyone?  yes in addition to effectiveness I forgot plays well with others, etc.

2.  The drug war?  Drones?  Civil liberties?  I don't know that our views are that different (on those), but they are not on the top of my priority list given what else is going on.

3.  So you don't think if every regulation passed since Obama took office were repealed it would help the economy?
NB: I'm an economic midget compared to you and the rest of the folks here, this is just one obvious thing I can think of. 

4.  My memory is bad (seriously, side effect of meditation), but of the regulars here that I remember how they post, I agree with CraigR and PS (PS the vast majority of the time).  I had assumed that there was vast bias for Obama here since I could not imagine any other possibility and did not understand where the rest of you are coming from.  I'm still not sure I do.

5.  Unless Romney did the pseudo dream act thing there  would be less illegals streaming in across the boarders now.  And unlike you know who, I don't think Romney would ignore massive public opinion against amnesty.  Hell even Rubio finally got a clue. 

6. You can't say Romney's opponent didn't physically bow, multiple times.  There are pictures.  You can't say he  hasn't treated Israel shitty.  I could go on, but the bottom line is that US has successfully been weakened in world affairs and I believe sooner or later we will pay for it. 

[moda0306]

Benko,

Craig and PS have very different messages on this forum. And I don't know about Craig, but I would be willing to bet that PS doesn't think that there is a vast bias for Obama.  I'm actually amazed you think that. I haven't heard any pro-Obama hyperbole at all on this board.  I think you're getting too caught up in tribe mentality.

Regarding immigration, if "vast public support" are our measuring sticks of good policy, I guess SS, Medicare, and a host of other government programs are also a good idea... (Sarcasm).

[Benko]

TennPA,
4. My memory is bad (seriously, side effect of meditation), but of the regulars here that I remember how they post, I agree with CraigR and PS (PS the vast majority of the time). I had assumed that there was vast bias for Obama here since I could not imagine any other possibility and did not understand where the rest of you are coming from. I'm still not sure I do.

it has always seemed to me that with the exception of a few prolific posters who are more likely to be pro-statist/liberal/democrat (but not always) and a hand full of far less prolific posters from Europe who tend to have a different view/experience with the socialist side of things, the vast majority here tend to be equal opportunity haters of government and big government regardless of party or politician..

1.Simon,
"a few prolific posters who are more likely to be pro-statist/liberal/democrat (but not always)"

Thanks for the reminder.  This is true (on many boards) I had forgotten.  I wonder if we were able to get a larger sample (to the ROmney vs opponent question in the last election) of the people here if there would have been a different answer. 

2.  Moda,

I USED to think the board was biased towards Obama since I couldn't think of any other explanation.  Best I can tell it is not bias, but the thought processes which result in your beliefs (electing Romney vs opponent would not make any difference) are so alien to me as to be nearly incomprehensible.  And I do believe it has made a difference and will continue to make one. 

Then again, triple B is more articulate and knows far more of the relevant info than I do.  I should let him speak and spend less time on internet boards. 

[Pointedstick]

I too am surprised to see the misperception that there are a bunch of Obama-lovers here. The most "liberal" members I can think of have all expressed deep frustration with Obama and I would be surprised to find that more than two or three people here voted for him in 2012.

Personally, when I say or agree with the sentiment that the two parties are mostly the same, it's not because I believe they both literally want to do the same things. It's because my impression is that both of them are heavily statist and want to expand government power in ways that benefit them or their constituents. Now, the parties, candidates, and politicians often differ strongly on just how they want government power expanded. But often, they don't. And often, the way government power escalates is almost accidental, and nobody from either side is willing to actually take a stand against it because none of them really see the problem with greater government power.

For example: the police militarization program we're all talking a lot about nowadays started under Clinton, ramped up under Bush, and then further ramped up under Obama. Is this because all three of them were fascists eager to crush the human spirit with steel-toed boots? Hardly. Rather, all three of them were simply complicit in a program larger than partisanship that took on a sinister tone under everybody's noses. And I'll note that now that we have a supposedly bleeding heart liberal president, and the program is receiving a lot of negative attention from many quarters, Obama doesn't seem to be in any particular hurry to dismantle the program. He's ordered a "review" of it which is politician-ese for "shut up and go away, I want this whole thing to disappear so I can go back to issues I care about." Would Romney have axed the program? I doubt it.

This is what I and probably others are talking about. While it's true that politicians from both major parties frequently disagree about how they want government power used, the fact that none of them express any great deal of interest in actually rolling it back is what makes those of us who see expanding government power itself as the problem to dismiss the differences between them as mere window dressing.

People whose highest concern is freedom aren't very enthusiastic about government power being expanded even if it benefits them. To give you an example, the NRA is now pushing laws that override private property rights of employers and prohibit them from prohibiting firearms in their parking lots. Another one is prohibiting doctors from asking their patients about guns. While these laws theoretically, technical benefit me and other gun owners, I am uncomfortable with the concept because I don't just want more gun rights, I want more freedom. Stomping on one person's freedom to give me more of it is a divisive, zero-sum game and I don't like it.

That's why even though a lot of my interests line up with the Republicans agenda, I can't get behind them because they don't actually want more freedom. They want a society that benefits a certain type of person and at best neglects and at worst marginalizes others (e.g. non-heterosexuals, atheists, soft drug users, racial minorities, poor people, artist-types, the highly-educated, etc). And I just can't get behind that. I can't get behind the liberal version either, because their plan is simply the inverse: elevate the traditionally marginalized elements of society while oppressing the winners. Bzzt! Wrong! All I want is for the government to get the hell out of the way and let people interact with one another like normal human beings rather than through the oppressive, polarizing, dehumanizing machinery of zero-sum partisan politics.

[moda0306]

Moda,

You mention many problems caused by monopolistic market power both explicitly and indirectly (e.g. the genetically modified food problem is caused by a Montsanto monopoly).

I propose that no monopolies can exist outside of government intervention. The free market won't allow it. I also propose that 99% of all problems Americans face with private companies are ones who have government-enabled monopolies or oligopolies.

Here's a list of companies/industries. Which ones receive the most complaints? Which ones are heavily regulated by government, which creates an oligopoly in the marketplace that prevents new competitors from entering?

1) Airlines - Delta, American Airlines, United, etc.
2) Cell Phone Companies - AT&T, TMobile, etc.
3) Utilities - Your Electric Company, Your Water Company, etc.
4) ISPs - Comcast, Time Warner, etc.
5) Automobile Manufacturers - Ford, Toyota, Honda
6) Computer Makers - Dell, Apple, etc.
7) Supermarkets - Whole Foods, Trader Joes, etc.
8 ) Fast Food Restaurants - McDonalds, Burger King, etc.

Now pick a list of your personal 3 most hated companies that you do business with. And summarize a business plan that would create an effective competitor. Can you form your competitor with simply financial capital and business acumen alone? Or is a key part of your business plan figuring out a way to secure government licensure, meet impossible government regulations, and lobby for political favor? Is it even possible to form your new business or did the government create an artificial restriction on how many businesses are allowed to exist in your industry (e.g. cell phone spectrum, water lines to houses, number of airports and size of airports, etc)?

The companies and industries most hated by consumers are ones that consumers have no choice in using because the government will not allow competition. Paradoxically, the stated reason for government inhibiting competition is to protect against monopolistic exploitation of consumers.

I also propose that this is purely a Liberal/Left-Wing created problem because Conservatives/Right-Wingers typically argue to deregulate industries.

TB,

I can agree that at times government supports monopolies in various ways.  I'd prefer not to get into the whole debate as to whether monopolies are a natural function of capitalism or an affect of statism, yet, but to your point about "republicans arguing to deregulate industries," this is only partially correct....

Republicans, generally, want to deregulate industries from the level of regulation we have today, not down to zero.  That's the realm of libertarians (who still often want local governments, courts, military, etc), and anarchists, who want it all to go away.  Republicans want LESS government, not no government, so they are, in effect, arguing in favor of some statist regulatory structure.  Surely, in many cases, ones big enough to keep a lot of the problems you think exist persisting.

So these aren't "liberal" problems.  They're "anyone who supports them" problems, assuming your premise that monopolies are statist creations, which I largely reject anyway.

But no republicans and few libertarians want to have to step off of their moral high-ground and admit that they are statists, too, and that they want to force others at the point of a gun, as well.  Obviously, degrees matter... but we are talking about people who argue on fundamental principals, not necessarily degrees of statism and their utilitarian effects (they do that too, of course).  But whenever they are pressured in utilitarian discussions, they like to step back onto their moral high ground and say "yeah but I just don't want government to have a monopoly on force," or "I just don't want an entity telling people what they have to do."

Yes you do.  Unless you're an anarchist, you are a statist.  Degrees matter, but not because of principle (degrees don't matter when arguing on principle), but because of utilitarian effects.

I say this politely... unless you are an anarchist, please spare us the condescending moralizing against liberals and the principles by-which they "rule."  It's the same principle that our conservative and libertarian (non-anarchist) rulers use as well.  The point of the government's gun.  If you ARE an anarchist, then ANY government should be the enemy... not just one that tries to steal to provide free healthcare instead of free police & courts.  But then again, we're going to have a very different argument about whether anarcho-capitalism is really anarchism at that point .

[TripleB]

To be clear, I believe the government has zero place in regulating private enterprise. There's no government regulations on private enterprise that have a positive impact on people. The role of government is enforcing contracts. If a private business made promises to a consumer, and failed to meet those promises, then the government should step in to enforce the contract.

The only needed forms of regulation against private enterprise is industry and consumer-level. If a business cannot prove that it's providing a safe/effective product, no one will buy it. We don't need a government entity to create arbitrary guidelines for what's safe and what is not safe based on the whims of a bureaucrat being bribed by lobbyists who benefit from the existence of government regulation.

Do we need government to mandate all cars have air bags? What if I don't want an airbag? I still have to pay for it, because government says a car company can't sell me a car without it, and then I have to go through the hassle and expense of having it removed. What if through my experience and knowledge I determine airbags provide a negative safety effect on me? Why can't I make the decision myself?

Suppose everyone decided they all wanted air bags. Do we need government to force car makers at gunpoint to provide them? Of course not. Suppose a handful of people like myself decide we are better off without airbags? Then we get screwed over by the government.

Consider pharmaceuticals. Who decides if they are safe? Some bureaucrats in the FDA who I never met? What if I'm dying of a rare disease and a treatment exists but hasn't passed FDA approval? And I die while waiting for an FDA bureaucrat (who is similar in competency to a TSA agent, Post Office Clerk, or DMV Agent) to decide whether it's worth the risk for me to take it or not? Studies have shown 50,000 Americans died waiting for the FDA to approve beta blockers, which were already in use in Europe at the time. Why not let people make their own decisions?

What if I'm too stupid to make my own decisions? Where does that end? Shouldn't the government then decide what I should eat? Because I'm too stupid to figure out how to eat healthy?

What if I am not too stupid to make my own decision, but I feel I am uninformed or lack the resources to make an effective decision on my own? Do I need a government entity to do it for me? Of course not. If there were no government regulations, then third party industry groups would form to perform testing to prove to customers the products were safe. Think about Underwriters Laboratory or Consumer Reports. These things already exist. They would exist in greater numbers and scope if the government didn't assume a forced monopoly at gunpoint to prove to consumers products were safe.

Without government, people wouldn't all of the sudden be stupid and start buying stupid things and flying on planes that fall from the sky. If airliners couldn't prove their planes would safe (through some kind of independent private testing), then no one would fly. We don't need government to collect tax dollars from all of us at gunpoint to perform arbitrary safety testing at a level that's suboptimal for any individual consumer. What if I decide something is "safe enough" at a lower cost and am willing to assume the risk? Government says I'm too stupid to do that.

The situation here is either (a) we're all too stupid to make our decisions and government should make them all for us and decide how much soda is permissible to drink or (b) we're smart enough to make decisions and government is getting in the way.

[Mountaineer]

What if I'm too stupid to make my own decisions? Where does that end?

What if I am not too stupid to make my own decision, but I feel I am uninformed or lack the resources to make an effective decision on my own? Do I need a government entity to do it for me? Of course not.

I think both of these cases end in the same place - voters who put people in government office that do not much care for the "stupid" or the "not stupid but uninformed" people who put them there, other than to feed them a continual line of malarky so they can get voted into office again - and the cycle continues.  Pitch the snake oil to the stupid and the uninformed which have become a significant portion of the population.  Maybe Ad Orientum has it right - monarchy may be the better choice of a bad bunch of options.

... Mountaineer

[moda0306]

TB,

So why do we need government to enforce contracts, rather than just having contracts formed more on the basis of knowing that the businesses and individuals that don't honor their contracts won't profit long-term?

This is just effectively another form of regulation, paid for by taxes taken from me at the point of a gun.

[TripleB]

TB,

So why do we need government to enforce contracts, rather than just having contracts formed more on the basis of knowing that the businesses and individuals that don't honor their contracts won't profit long-term?

This is just effectively another form of regulation, paid for by taxes taken from me at the point of a gun.

If you murder someone in a society, you will be expected to be punished. This is because people decide they want to live in a society where they are at reduced risk of getting murdered.

If you make an agreement to do something within a society, and you violate that agreement, you will expect to be punished. Because without that contract enforcement system, people wouldn't be as willing to enter into contracts.

You need a government to enforce contracts because without one, you would have third party contract enforcers that would act in a way that is akin to the mafia.

When government role is limited to enforcing contracts, a citizens interaction with the government can be limited if they so choose. One simply has to decide that they don't like the government enforcing contracts and will instead not enter into contracts enforceable by the government. That's freedom.

If government role is involved in regulating every interaction with private enterprise, then it's impossible to opt out. That's totalitarianism and statism. One cannot simply decide in America to purchase raw milk from a dairy farmer. One cannot simply decide to enter an agreement with an auto manufacturer to purchase a car without an air bag. One cannot simply decide to allow a pharmaceutical company to offer an experimental drug to them when they are going to die anyway.

If one doesn't like the government regulations, how do you opt out?

If one doesn't like government-enforced contracts, it's trivial to opt out.

[moda0306]

How do I opt out of government enforcing my contracts with others?  How do I opt out of the taxes that pay for that enforcement?

[TripleB]

How do I opt out of government enforcing my contracts with others?  How do I opt out of the taxes that pay for that enforcement?

You currently can't opt out of the taxes that pay for that enforcement. In Libertarian Magical Fantasy Land, there would be no income tax because it would be unnecessary. Our country went 200 years without an income tax, until it started regulating everything and sticking it's nose where it didn't belong.

If you lived in Libertarian Fantasy Land, you could opt out of government enforcing your contracts with others by putting a clause in the contract that says "this contract is unenforcible by the government." Perhaps you add a clause that says "this contract is only enforceable by private third party arbitrators."

And if both you and the person(s) entering in that contract agreed that you didn't want government enforcing that contract, you could do it, as simple as that.

In 2014 America, I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think that's possible. Even if two people mutually agreed they wanted government taking no part in enforcing a contract, I don't think the government would allow that. One person could change their mind, run crying to the government, and the government would declare the contract null and void because it's illegal to say the government can't enforce contracts.

However, if both parties agreed they didn't want the government to enforce a contract in 2014 America, and neither party ran crying afoul to the government (which breaches those non-government enforcement terms), then the government couldn't enforce the contract because the government can only enforce contracts it knows about. But that doesn't do you any good because it doesn't prevent the counterparty risk of deciding to breach the contact by crying to government for help.

[Libertarian666]

How do I opt out of government enforcing my contracts with others?  How do I opt out of the taxes that pay for that enforcement?

You currently can't opt out of the taxes that pay for that enforcement. In Libertarian Magical Fantasy Land, there would be no income tax because it would be unnecessary. Our country went 200 years without an income tax, until it started regulating everything and sticking it's nose where it didn't belong.

If you lived in Libertarian Fantasy Land, you could opt out of government enforcing your contracts with others by putting a clause in the contract that says "this contract is unenforcible by the government." Perhaps you add a clause that says "this contract is only enforceable by private third party arbitrators."

And if both you and the person(s) entering in that contract agreed that you didn't want government enforcing that contract, you could do it, as simple as that.

In 2014 America, I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think that's possible. Even if two people mutually agreed they wanted government taking no part in enforcing a contract, I don't think the government would allow that. One person could change their mind, run crying to the government, and the government would declare the contract null and void because it's illegal to say the government can't enforce contracts.

However, if both parties agreed they didn't want the government to enforce a contract in 2014 America, and neither party ran crying afoul to the government (which breaches those non-government enforcement terms), then the government couldn't enforce the contract because the government can only enforce contracts it knows about. But that doesn't do you any good because it doesn't prevent the counterparty risk of deciding to breach the contact by crying to government for help.

You certainly can opt out of government enforcement so long as both parties to a contract want to do so; it's called "binding arbitration", and it is perfectly legal and getting more popular every day.

Unfortunately it doesn't apply to a major type of "contract", namely marriage.

[Kshartle]

A vast amount of contracts are not enforced by government.

Look at all the backroom deals made by politicians illegally. By definition they are not enforceable by government, yet they happen all the time and are wildly successful.

See, the government itself proves you don't need government to enforce contracts! hah!

[moda0306]

How do I opt out of government enforcing my contracts with others?  How do I opt out of the taxes that pay for that enforcement?

You currently can't opt out of the taxes that pay for that enforcement. In Libertarian Magical Fantasy Land, there would be no income tax because it would be unnecessary. Our country went 200 years without an income tax, until it started regulating everything and sticking it's nose where it didn't belong.

If you lived in Libertarian Fantasy Land, you could opt out of government enforcing your contracts with others by putting a clause in the contract that says "this contract is unenforcible by the government." Perhaps you add a clause that says "this contract is only enforceable by private third party arbitrators."

And if both you and the person(s) entering in that contract agreed that you didn't want government enforcing that contract, you could do it, as simple as that.

In 2014 America, I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think that's possible. Even if two people mutually agreed they wanted government taking no part in enforcing a contract, I don't think the government would allow that. One person could change their mind, run crying to the government, and the government would declare the contract null and void because it's illegal to say the government can't enforce contracts.

However, if both parties agreed they didn't want the government to enforce a contract in 2014 America, and neither party ran crying afoul to the government (which breaches those non-government enforcement terms), then the government couldn't enforce the contract because the government can only enforce contracts it knows about. But that doesn't do you any good because it doesn't prevent the counterparty risk of deciding to breach the contact by crying to government for help.

TB,

If your standard for not attempting to get rid of a role of government is aligned with whether the masses are likely to get on board, why are we even talking about regulations and a social safety net?  The VAST majority of Americans believe the government should play some role in regulation and social safety nets.

Why do those get such specific attention from you, if they are so unlikely to go away in "2014 America?"  Why put on a veil of pragmatism when you're vehimently advocating slashing government functions that have VAST public support in general principle?

Let's say you're king for a day.  Do you abolish the entire government, if you knew it wouldn't reform itself?  How do you go about doing that?

[TripleB]

Let's say you're king for a day.  Do you abolish the entire government, if you knew it wouldn't reform itself?  How do you go about doing that?

I'd have much more fun pretending gravity would cease to exist and plan out what kind of rocket ship to Mars I'm going to build. It's also a lot more likely to happen than abolishing even half of our government.

So I'm thinking of a tri-fin design with purple stripes vertically against a black charcoal main hull. I'd like a compartment dedicated to a swimming pool because gravity free swimming sounds awesome.

[moda0306]

TB,

You seem to be interested on curing government of a pretty huge degree of its supposed evils, but think others are fruitless.

I'm simply trying to dig into why they occupy different categories, and what the true extent of your advocated society really is.