Is Having A [Big] Government Really Worth It?

[Benko]

Doodle,

You miss the point.  I donate some of my time to people who cannot afford my services.

Your preferred form of gov't rewards and encourages people to be lazy and to game the system.

[TripleB]

Would your perspective on government change if someone came to you with the following proposal:

1. First you will design the form of government that you think society should live under...

2. You will roll the dice two times 1 being the worst and 6 being the best. The first role will determine your IQ and genetics, the second role will determine the family and socio-economic class you are born into. 

How would you feel about your first decision if you just rolled a pair of snake eyes?

Low IQ sucks in all governments.

With regard to socio-economics, I'd argue that a Libertarian society is best for them because it gives them something to aspire to AND doesn't erect artificial barriers to entry to block upward mobility..

As well-intentioned as most liberals are, it causes more harm than good to the classes they are attempted to protect. Women receive lower pay than men BECAUSE of the protections they are entitled.

"Oh, I can't ask a woman if she's pregnant before I hire her for this very important position that requires commitment to the job for several years? Fine, I'll hire a man."

"OK I hired a woman but oh, if you get pregnant, I have to give you time off to take care of your baby, and still preserve your job for you, but at my expense I have to train someone else to do it on a temporary basis and pay them extra because it's a short contract that requires high skills/ability? Fine, but I'm paying you 20% less because if you do get pregnant, that delta in your salary will be used to train your temporary replacement."

"OK I promoted a woman because the government is going to claim I'm biased in my hiring/promotions and I want to avoid a lawsuit. You're not the most qualified candidate, but you are the most qualified woman candidate. I'm sure all of the more qualified men that you were selected ahead of will treat you very well, knowing that the only reason you got the position is your vagina. Aww, you mean they aren't treating you well? Well, shucks."

Could be my die-hard libertarianism speaking, but I most certaintly would not want to be a protected class in a Liberal Utopia. Then again I don't want to be the leading class in a Liberal Utopia either because I get passed by for the protected class. Ergo, the Liberal Utopia is sucky for everyone.

[doodle]

Doodle,

You miss the point.  I donate some of my time to people who cannot afford my services.

Your preferred form of gov't rewards and encourages people to be lazy and to game the system.

That is very honorable of you and I agree that government is not perfect. But there must be some redistributive and socially equalizing forces within society or else things begin to breakdown and become worse for everyone. In the past this was accomplished through almsgiving or what not. Today, with the increasing complexity and size of our towns and cities, government has had to step in to take care of problems that are slipping through frayed and broken communities.

I look to northern European socialist systems as probably the best and healthiest compromise in todays modern world.

[TripleB]

I look to northern European socialist systems as probably the best and healthiest compromise in todays modern world.

Their economy isn't so healthy... apparently they are in some serious debt and going to slash all their government benefits. Turns out it's not an economically viable government model. Shame because guaranteed 2 month vacations every year, lifetime pensions after 20 years and free healthcare seemed like a sweet deal.

[Pointedstick]

Doodle,

You miss the point.  I donate some of my time to people who cannot afford my services.

Your preferred form of gov't rewards and encourages people to be lazy and to game the system.

That is very honorable of you and I agree that government is not perfect. But there must be some redistributive and socially equalizing forces within society or else things begin to breakdown and become worse for everyone. In the past this was accomplished through almsgiving or what not. Today, with the increasing complexity and size of our towns and cities, government has had to step in to take care of problems that are slipping through frayed and broken communities.

This is a very good point, and one I think is often overlooked. As society has become atomized, the role the church and prominent wealthy families used to play have all but evaporated, and the government took over.

Sometimes I wonder what would happen if all the redistributive government welfare programs disappeared. Would religion and private charity take up the slack? If not, are there any different social conditions that might make the answer different?

[MediumTex]

Doodle,

You miss the point.  I donate some of my time to people who cannot afford my services.

Your preferred form of gov't rewards and encourages people to be lazy and to game the system.

That is very honorable of you and I agree that government is not perfect. But there must be some redistributive and socially equalizing forces within society or else things begin to breakdown and become worse for everyone. In the past this was accomplished through almsgiving or what not. Today, with the increasing complexity and size of our towns and cities, government has had to step in to take care of problems that are slipping through frayed and broken communities.

I look to northern European socialist systems as probably the best and healthiest compromise in todays modern world.

To paraphrase Margaret Thatcher, the problem with socialism in northern Europe is that it appears that the bureaucrats and politicians are beginning to run out of other people's money to spend.

Like all things that are too good to be true, the cradle to grave nanny state is a fantasy that has only lasted as long as it has due to an unusual convergence of favorable demographics and amazing increases in productivity.  Future generations will not have it so easy.

As far as the larger point doodle keeps making about the libertarian beliefs here, I feel like he is reading a different forum.  I have read forums like he is describing, where there is nothing but dogma and ideology that almost completely eclipses reality, but that's not what I think that we are doing here at all.

My conception of libertarianism is basically an ever-present skepticism of the ability of government to achieve any task that it sets out to accomplish.  There are a number of good reasons for this skepticism that I have covered many times in the past, but that's all it really is: skepticism.

doodle, can you show me why this skepticism is not a good filter through which to view governmental action? 

The wisest politicians I have ever seen or heard are those who are skeptical themselves of the ability of the government to improve society or humanity in fundamental ways.  I think that's only prudent.

[TripleB]

I love how MT only rarely posts within these "heated" Other posts but every time he does post, it's brilliantly thought out and makes me grin ear to ear. 

[MachineGhost]

That is very honorable of you and I agree that government is not perfect. But there must be some redistributive and socially equalizing forces within society or else things begin to breakdown and become worse for everyone. In the past this was accomplished through almsgiving or what not. Today, with the increasing complexity and size of our towns and cities, government has had to step in to take care of problems that are slipping through frayed and broken communities.

I find "big government" to be preferable in an agnostic, secular way over the religious and elitism of churches and J.P. Morgan's.  Can you imagine a Citizen's Dividend working via biased private charities?  Uncertainty of a fixed income stream is what kills upward mobility.

But lets face it, did private charity really do all that it claimed to do?  There was the Oliver Twist era and then there was the era of seniors without health insurance.  I do not want to go back to that.

[MachineGhost]

Like all things that are too good to be true, the cradle to grave nanny state is a fantasy that has only lasted as long as it has due to an unusual convergence of favorable demographics and amazing increases in productivity.  Future generations will not have it so easy.

And oil in Norway's case.  It is obvious that as with the Soviet Union with the collapse of Communism, we are witnessing the death throes of Socialism.  The market always wins in the end.  I think we will eventually wind up with a libertarian state and a Citizen's Dividend.

[RuralEngineer]

MG, could you detail what you mean by "Citizen's Dividend?"

[D1984]

A Citizen's Dividend is a guaranteed basic income paid to all who are citizens (regardless of "need" or whether they "deserve" or have "earned" it). Is is a (generally) superior alternative to welfare, SSDI, UI, etc because it doesn't punish one for working or doing something else to improve one's situation and become more self-sufficient (some of the traditional welfare state programs have clawbacks so severe recipients face the equivalent of 60%+ marginal rates if they go and get a job).

[RuralEngineer]

Where does the money come from? Is the amount a living wage? How would such a payment not disincentavize working?

[doodle]

Citizen's dividend or citizen's income is a proposed state policy based upon the principle that the natural world is the common property of all persons. It is proposed that all citizens receive regular payments (dividends) from revenue raised by the state through leasing or selling natural resources for private use. In the United States, the idea can be traced back to Thomas Paine's essay, Agrarian Justice,[1] which is also considered one of the earliest proposals for a social security system in the United States. Thomas Paine summarized his view by stating that "Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."

This concept is a form of basic income, where the Citizen's Dividend depends upon the value of natural resources or what could be titled as "common goods" like location values, seignorage, the electro-magnetic spectrum, the industrial use of air (CO production), etc.

[MachineGhost]

Where does the money come from? Is the amount a living wage? How would such a payment not disincentavize working?

The money would come from the Congressional "printing press".  I would think it should be a minimum wage so that the most basic necessities of life are not an excuse to be stuck in an endless cycle of subsistence living.  It will certainly disincentivize useless, repetitive, exploitative grunt work and promote superior allocation of scarce mental resources to more productive and passionate things that actually benefit society.  It is very likely this will not be feasible until robots and automation replace a large portion of that low value work.  The tricky thing is how we get from here to there with the existing unemployment and welfare system which is woefully inadequate in terms of anti-poverty, income or returns.

Plus, lets not forget all the useless "make work" bureaucrats that will be unemployed.  We have to deal with them too.

[TripleB]

If I got an inflation adjusted citizen's dividend of $10k per year, I'd stop working entirely. Between the $800/month dividend and investment income, I can live very nicely in a low cost of living area without having to work.

[Pointedstick]

If I got an inflation adjusted citizen's dividend of $10k per year, I'd stop working entirely. Between the $800/month dividend and investment income, I can live very nicely in a low cost of living area without having to work.

Same. I suspect most aren't us though. The typical annual family expenditure seems to be 40-60k/yr.

[MachineGhost]

If I got an inflation adjusted citizen's dividend of $10k per year, I'd stop working entirely. Between the $800/month dividend and investment income, I can live very nicely in a low cost of living area without having to work.

That's fine, but human beings simply do not like to not work.  The brain gets bored.  So unless you plan on being a drug addict or playboy, I suspect you will find "work" to keep you occupied and directly or indirectly benefit society.  "Work" is not always the employee-employer construct.

[RuralEngineer]

That's fine, but human beings simply do not like to not work.  The brain gets bored.  So unless you plan on being a drug addict or playboy, I suspect you will find "work" to keep you occupied and directly or indirectly benefit society.  "Work" is not always the employee-employer construct.

Is it considered work if it only benefits myself and provides no goods or services that I intend to trade?  In such a situation I could see myself also not working in order to pursue hobbies such as hunting, fishing, and raising my own food.  I've always thought it funny that some people talk about "having to work."  I have plenty of hobbies to keep myself busy.

[MachineGhost]

Is it considered work if it only benefits myself and provides no goods or services that I intend to trade?  In such a situation I could see myself also not working in order to pursue hobbies such as hunting, fishing, and raising my own food.  I've always thought it funny that some people talk about "having to work."  I have plenty of hobbies to keep myself busy.

Probably not, we call those Mountain Men and I seriously doubt they exist in large numbers anymore.  But even with hobbies, unless you are 100% self-sustaining, 100% off the grid, living on a mountaintop as 100% dedicated survivalist loner, you'd be providing someone with a job somehow, somewhere on the planet.  That's the beauty of the free market.

Never seen this, but I wonder if they are really 100% independent: http://www.history.com/shows/mountain-men