Gyroscopic Investing

moda0306 wrote: I see government agents as similar to an accounting department of a company.

moda0306 wrote: Hahaha.

Good zinger.

Im more describing governments role as a potential facilitator to productivity similar to accountants.  There are plenty of pictures that could prove me otherwise.

Pointedstick wrote:

moda0306 wrote: Hahaha.

Good zinger.

Im more describing governments role as a potential facilitator to productivity similar to accountants.  There are plenty of pictures that could prove me otherwise.

The problem is that unlike accountants, most governments aim to facilitate some things and destroy others. It's much easier to facilitate productivity if this is your only job. If you walk in for work one day and you're handed a ledger and asked to balance the books, and the next day you get a gun and are told to kidnap people who inhale smoke from the wrong burning plants, that could get awfully confusing.

Pointedstick wrote:

moda0306 wrote: I see government agents as similar to an accounting department of a company.

Funny, I don't think I've ever seen any accountants who looked like this:

moda0306 wrote: Couldn't agree with you more.  I truly am trying to provide a framework for people to desire government to do far less of that kind of thing, so of course I agree with you.

Though some see social security or public freeways and taxes as essentially the same thing as police shooting a pot head, or at least that we will allow the former to become the latter (ie, gun control turns into a holocaust).

I really can't come to that conclusion without the context that a stateless society appears enormously fragile.

Pointedstick wrote:
I agree. Statess societies do seem very fragile, if only because they would be so threatening to governments that no matter how strong they were, they would be the target of a great deal of state violence. So there goes the anarchist end of the continuum. But none of us want communism, fascism, dictatorship, tyranny, etc; the total statist end of the continuum is out, too.

Pointedstick wrote:

moda0306 wrote: Couldn't agree with you more.  I truly am trying to provide a framework for people to desire government to do far less of that kind of thing, so of course I agree with you.

Though some see social security or public freeways and taxes as essentially the same thing as police shooting a pot head, or at least that we will allow the former to become the latter (ie, gun control turns into a holocaust).

I really can't come to that conclusion without the context that a stateless society appears enormously fragile.

I agree. Statess societies do seem very fragile, if only because they would be so threatening to governments that no matter how strong they were, they would be the target of a great deal of state violence. So there goes the anarchist end of the continuum. But none of us want communism, fascism, dictatorship, tyranny, etc; the total statist end of the continuum is out, too.

So that leads us back to limited government. But of course, we will never agree on what the limits should be. The founding fathers of the USA collectively believed that permitting human slavery was okay, in the form of chattel slavery of blacks and drafting men to fight during times of war. But they believed that a general income tax was a bridge too far. And they certainly never would have created non-legislative regulatory agencies with the power to create laws without public accountability.

Is any of that even relevant today? Should the government make roads? Schools? Regulate food? Regulate books? Regulate thought? Where does that leave us? Nowhere perhaps. Or locked in endless political battles over what the government should do. Welcome to reality, I suppose.

My only conclusion is that we are flawed creatures, doomed to live in a flawed society which reflects this. Might as well make the most of it with what time we have left.