What Are Your Politics?

[Pointedstick]

Doodle, the problem with parental analogies is that if government were the parents, that would imply the ability to create a government populated by those wholly superior in experience, intellect, wisdom compared to those they govern--an ideal that has never been achieved in human history. The best we've ever been able to do is "no worse". and mostly it's been "much worse."

[moda0306]

MT,

I agree that refining natural resources into a finished product is difficult.  Anyone who can do so should earn a profit.  However, the profit should be as a result of their creative talent, not being granted the natural resources for free simply because they know how to best work with them.

What you seem to be saying is that if someone can add 3 units of value to property that is inherently worth 7 units of value, one should be able to get that 7 units of value for free... this is essentially what happened as settlers moved west. The government granted them land if they developed it. The problem is, they're getting paid twice.  Maybe that's what it took for them to take the risk to move west! From a productivity standpoint, it makes sense to have these people homestead the land and develop it, but it's certainly not inherently private just because the farmer or oil driller has some unique skills. 

In your island example, there is a lot of natural private nature to the improvements to that real property.  Most of the value on said island would appear to be a direct result of the labor of the individual, not the resources themselves (palm trees, fish, etc... wouldn't be "valued" at all that much).  Further, your example is so pure it doesn't really exhibit the dilemma we face.

I tend to imagine an island that a lot of people arrive on at the same time, with lots of valuable natural resources.  Now the people that know structural engineering, agriculture, etc, are extremely valuable members of the society and should certainly make more than the others, but this doesn't give them some natural right to own the land over the others just because they have some skills.  You and I, MT, with our now-utterly -useless legal and accounting skills, still deserve to be allocated just as big a piece of the natural resource pie as the farmer.  However, we might need to pay him to teach us how to farm our land or sell him some land to farm himself, or maybe have him pay me to "rent" the land and farm it.

Either way, there's no reason I should get less than Frank the Farmer just cuz I don't know a seed from my ass .

[doodle]

PS,

The point is that someone has to make a decision and enforce a law regardless of their intelligence. In a house it is the parent and in society it is the government.

You still havent adressed the central question of "where does the buck stop?"

If not government, then how do disagreements get decided and enforced? If I come over and break all your windows because your dog crapped in my yard how does this get settled in a civilized way when I refuse to repair the damage I have caused?

[MediumTex]

Mt,

Yes the government is an entity of violence competing with others. But if we want laws, then we must accept coercion and violence and therefore the question become what form should this coercive entity take?

Why?  Why not try persuasion rather than coercion?  Why not make it in people's self-interest to behave in certain ways beyond the fear of violence? 

Isn't what you are saying basically the argument a communist would use for the government controlling (or seeking to control) every aspect of society?

It's not that I don't want any laws; it's that I want a lot fewer laws with much more modest aims.  Every government effort focused on changing the world seems to end in disaster.  I would like to see less of these types of efforts, with war obviously being the principal government program I would like to see reduced in size and scope.

So far a constitutionally bound democratic republic seems like a pretty good way to do things. After all, violence doesn't disappear in the absence of government, it just turns into the type of turf warfare that we see the drug cartels engaging in in Mexico or between two angry individuals who decide to settle their problems with pistols. When two parties disagree....which is bound to happen on a planet of 7 billion individuals....there must be an arbiter who has final say. Without this we go back to the law of the jungle.

I don't know about that.  It seems to me that most disputes seem to arise in situations where there is a scarcity of resources.  Where resources aren't scarce people can often get along remarkably well.  In my neighborhood I very rarely see police cars and yet people seem to get along with each other just fine.

If we think about what leads to the scarcity of resources in most cases (and thus an increase in disputes) how often do we find the causes of scarcity to be some dictator or bureaucrat meddling in the economy or just stealing from the productive efforts of others?

I don't disagree that some level of violence between individuals is probably unavoidable, but throughout history government-administered violence against its own people as well as undesirable foreigners has been a VASTLY greater threat to the average person than his neighbor being upset about a property line dispute.

What would you do if one of your kids kept trying to light the house on fire? After all, you kind of are like the government within the confines of your house. Would you step in and coercively stop them or just try to reason with them while they poured gasoline on your living room furniture?

Well, I would reason with them first while also cutting off their access to fire starting materials.  If reasoning with them failed, I might burn up some of their toys to demonstrate the inappropriateness of torching other people's property.  Finally, if my reasoning, removal of access and creative demonstrations failed to achieve my desire objective, I would probably then resort to coercion.

I'm not saying that coercion has no place in society.  What I am talking about is whether coercion should be the first or last option.  When it comes to government actions, too often coercion is the first response to resistance or dissent, as opposed to being the last response.

[Pointedstick]

You and I, MT, with our now-utterly -useless legal and accounting skills, still deserve to be allocated just as big a piece of the natural resource pie as the farmer.

[...]

Either way, there's no reason I should get less than Frank the Farmer just cuz I don't know a seed from my ass .

That's a big revelation to me that you feel this way, because I think you absolutely should get less than the farmer if you live in a society where agriculture is crucial. This is simply society's way of rewarding those who contribute the most. Hypothetically, if the world goes to crap and we fall into a Mad Max/Fallout universe and people forget how to make computers and my computer programming skills become useless, does that mean I still deserve as much land, iron ore, etc as the people who grow food, pump water, or guard all of us from hostiles? Absolutely not. They are societally more valuable than I in such a different society, and if I wish to receive as much as they do, I should need to produce things that are of as much value to my society as they do.

Right?

[Pointedstick]

You still havent adressed the central question of "where does the buck stop?"

If not government, then how do disagreements get decided and enforced? If I come over and break all your windows because your dog crapped in my yard how does this get settled in a civilized way when I refuse to repair the damage I have caused?

Why would I not clean up my dog's poop before walking off? And why would you break my windows over such a minor thing? If the both of us are really such barbarians that it comes to this, then IMHO there's no hope for us living peacefully. Having a government threaten the both of us with violence is no solution at all; what if one of us gains control of government? Then that person simply has even greater means to commit barbarism on the other.

[MediumTex]

Mt,

Your entire worldview rests on the idea that humans can own anything other than their own bodies. Once you move the idea of ownership to things outside of your own body, to the surface of the planet, you are making a personal judgement and on this judgement your shaky construction rests. I don't find the argument very convincing that just because you are hardworking and smart all of a sudden you are entitled to something which you did not create....namely the earth and its resources. Who decides how this planet gets divided up? It seems like you are coercing us to abide by you idea of how that should be done.

If a social entity that has cornered the market on the legal administration of violence tells me that there are no longer any property rights, what is it really saying?  Is it saying that there are no more property right or is it saying that all property rights of private citizens' now belong to the government?

Without property rights of some kind, no economic development occurs.  We can debate whether it would be a good or bad thing for no economic development to occur, but it's worth noting that without the economic development that gave us desks, chairs, computers, data sharing networks, industrialized food production and indoor climate control, rather than having this interesting discussion we would probably be plowing a field or feeding the chickens right now.

If human effort makes improvements to land or raw natural resources, there is always some expectation of property rights.  If you find me the most backward isolated jungle people in the world whose entire culture and belief system is based upon sharing everything with others, just see what happens if I roll into their village with a truck and start loading up all of their food and supplies.  The idea of sharing with others freely still implies a property right that is being shared in the first place.  Do you see what I mean?

Can you show me any productive human effort that increases the value of land or other natural resources that doesn't have some type of property right expectation associated with it?  Without the expectation of being able to control in some way the fruits of one's efforts, what possible reason would there be for anyone to do anything productive? 

[MediumTex]

The point is that someone has to make a decision and enforce a law regardless of their intelligence. In a house it is the parent and in society it is the government.

I disagree.  Many "laws" are simply contractual agreements between two parties and it is those parties who decide who interprets the agreements and settles any disputes arising thereunder.

In the private sector, there are mediators, arbitrators and other dispute resolution specialists who resolve disputes every day because parties agreed that this is the method they would use if a dispute arose.  No government is needed in these cases, just enlightened people who decided to make allowances for private sector solutions to any private sector problems that might arise.

[doodle]

The point is that someone has to make a decision and enforce a law regardless of their intelligence. In a house it is the parent and in society it is the government.

I disagree.  Many "laws" are simply contractual agreements between two parties and it is those parties who decide who interprets the agreements and settles any disputes arising thereunder.

In the private sector, there are mediators, arbitrators and other dispute resolution specialists who resolve disputes every day because parties agreed that this is the method they would use if a dispute arose.  No government is needed in these cases, just enlightened people who decided to make allowances for private sector solutions to any private sector problems that might arise.

Ahhh...so thats the crux. This perfect uncoercive society rests on perfectly enlightened people. Well, as soon as that happens, I agree that we can probably dissolve the government.

Mt,

Your entire worldview rests on the idea that humans can own anything other than their own bodies. Once you move the idea of ownership to things outside of your own body, to the surface of the planet, you are making a personal judgement and on this judgement your shaky construction rests. I don't find the argument very convincing that just because you are hardworking and smart all of a sudden you are entitled to something which you did not create....namely the earth and its resources. Who decides how this planet gets divided up? It seems like you are coercing us to abide by you idea of how that should be done.

If a social entity that has cornered the market on the legal administration of violence tells me that there are no longer any property rights, what is it really saying?  Is it saying that there are no more property right or is it saying that all property rights of private citizens' now belong to the government?

Without property rights of some kind, no economic development occurs.  We can debate whether it would be a good or bad thing for no economic development to occur, but it's worth noting that without the economic development that gave us desks, chairs, computers, data sharing networks, industrialized food production and indoor climate control, rather than having this interesting discussion we would probably be plowing a field or feeding the chickens right now.

If human effort makes improvements to land or raw natural resources, there is always some expectation of property rights.  If you find me the most backward isolated jungle people in the world whose entire culture and belief system is based upon sharing everything with others, just see what happens if I roll into their village with a truck and start loading up all of their food and supplies.  The idea of sharing with others freely still implies a property right that is being shared in the first place.  Do you see what I mean?

Can you show me any productive human effort that increases the value of land or other natural resources that doesn't have some type of property right expectation associated with it?  Without the expectation of being able to control in some way the fruits of one's efforts, what possible reason would there be for anyone to do anything productive? 

Is there anyway to enforce property rights other than by violence? Can you think of a noncoercive market mechanism that will stop me from pulling all the nice bass out of your lake when Im hungry as hell?

The only planet I see your and PS ideas suceeding on is the planet Vulcan. 

[moda0306]

You and I, MT, with our now-utterly -useless legal and accounting skills, still deserve to be allocated just as big a piece of the natural resource pie as the farmer.

[...]

Either way, there's no reason I should get less than Frank the Farmer just cuz I don't know a seed from my ass .

That's a big revelation to me that you feel this way, because I think you absolutely should get less than the farmer if you live in a society where agriculture is crucial. This is simply society's way of rewarding those who contribute the most. Hypothetically, if the world goes to crap and we fall into a Mad Max/Fallout universe and people forget how to make computers and my computer programming skills become useless, does that mean I still deserve as much land, iron ore, etc as the people who grow food, pump water, or guard all of us from hostiles? Absolutely not. They are societally more valuable than I in such a different society, and if I wish to receive as much as they do, I should need to produce things that are of as much value to my society as they do.

Right?

If people are socially more valuable, they will get paid more for it as a natural result of free interaction. There is NO fundamental reason, on a level of either fairness or individual sovereignty, that either government or the rest of society should simply grant them resources for free that others don't have because they might use them with their talents to sell back to us at yet another profit.  Even if there was, it would be a HUGE value judgment by government (and, indeed, has been over time). 

The farmer WILL earn far more than the talentless financial minion in an evenly divided island, because his services will be naturally valuable to everyone else.  He doesn't deserve to get paid for his services by others, AND granted all sorts of free resources that others don't get from the get-go.

They'll pay him for his services with services of their own or products they make.  If he truly is good at what he does, his value should be able to stand on its own two feet, and not the support of government trying to subsidize certain talents at the expense of others.

Put another way, if one of the talents on the island is a guy who has amazing musical talent, and entertains the other residents every night, he's extremely valuable (assuming everyone's base needs are being met), but because he doesn't have a skill that directly uses a lot of the island's natural resource, he isn't granted any for free?  That sure sucks for him, while the farmer not only gets paid for his creative output, but gets a lot of free resources to boot.  He has to rely almost 100% on his creative talent, while the farmer is combining his skill with natural resources to a huge degree.  There's nothing wrong with this, but there's no reason to pre-allocate the farmer a bunch of land for free because he needs something to farm, while leaving the musician with nothing but the guitar that survived the shipwreck.

Another way to make this more fair would be to give the farmer the good farm land, and the miner the oil deposits, but then don't call it "confiscation!!" when we tax to provide some safety net benefits for poor children.  It would just be another element of the social contract, where resources are allocated to those who can use them best, and a safety net is provided to those with nothing.

[MediumTex]

The point is that someone has to make a decision and enforce a law regardless of their intelligence. In a house it is the parent and in society it is the government.

I disagree.  Many "laws" are simply contractual agreements between two parties and it is those parties who decide who interprets the agreements and settles any disputes arising thereunder.

In the private sector, there are mediators, arbitrators and other dispute resolution specialists who resolve disputes every day because parties agreed that this is the method they would use if a dispute arose.  No government is needed in these cases, just enlightened people who decided to make allowances for private sector solutions to any private sector problems that might arise.

Ahhh...so thats the crux. This perfect uncoercive society rests on perfectly enlightened people. Well, as soon as that happens, I agree that we can probably dissolve the government.

I didn't say anything about a perfect society.  It's just a matter of which direction you think its best to steer society.

Talking in terms of extremes is rarely helpful because the extreme expression of an idea will never happen.  We will always have government; it's just a matter of what type of government and how coercive it's going to be.  I would favor a less intrusive government with fewer coercive powers.  I'm surprised that these ideas would be viewed as controversial, considering they were apparently the principles on which our nation was founded in the first place.  It's not like they are revolutionary or incompatible for our foundational documents and ideas.

Mt,

Your entire worldview rests on the idea that humans can own anything other than their own bodies. Once you move the idea of ownership to things outside of your own body, to the surface of the planet, you are making a personal judgement and on this judgement your shaky construction rests. I don't find the argument very convincing that just because you are hardworking and smart all of a sudden you are entitled to something which you did not create....namely the earth and its resources. Who decides how this planet gets divided up? It seems like you are coercing us to abide by you idea of how that should be done.

If a social entity that has cornered the market on the legal administration of violence tells me that there are no longer any property rights, what is it really saying?  Is it saying that there are no more property right or is it saying that all property rights of private citizens' now belong to the government?

Without property rights of some kind, no economic development occurs.  We can debate whether it would be a good or bad thing for no economic development to occur, but it's worth noting that without the economic development that gave us desks, chairs, computers, data sharing networks, industrialized food production and indoor climate control, rather than having this interesting discussion we would probably be plowing a field or feeding the chickens right now.

If human effort makes improvements to land or raw natural resources, there is always some expectation of property rights.  If you find me the most backward isolated jungle people in the world whose entire culture and belief system is based upon sharing everything with others, just see what happens if I roll into their village with a truck and start loading up all of their food and supplies.  The idea of sharing with others freely still implies a property right that is being shared in the first place.  Do you see what I mean?

Can you show me any productive human effort that increases the value of land or other natural resources that doesn't have some type of property right expectation associated with it?  Without the expectation of being able to control in some way the fruits of one's efforts, what possible reason would there be for anyone to do anything productive? 

Is there anyway to enforce property rights other than by violence? Can you think of a noncoercive market mechanism that will stop me from pulling all the nice bass out of your lake when Im hungry as hell?

I enforce property rights in my home every day and its virtually always through persuasion, even though 50 years ago a similar household might have resorted to coercion without giving it a second thought.

Why is it not possible for all of society to similarly evolve?

The only planet I see your and PS ideas suceeding on is the planet Vulcan. 

Isn't that what a communist would have said 100 years ago about the U.S. today?

One of the things that shocks people from some other parts of the world when they visit the U.S. is how honest people are in general.  This basic honesty makes it immensely easier to do business.  Without seeing it for themselves, these people would probably swear that such basic honesty among strangers was a fantasy.  I think that part of what makes people in the U.S. so honest in many settings is the fact that our society is so prosperous.  Prosperity makes many aspects of life easier, whether we are talking about reductions in disputes or honesty in business transactions. 

doodle, I assume you think of yourself as idealistic in your beliefs about the good that government can do in society.  Do you not see that I am similarly idealistic about the good that can be done in society without the necessity of government involvement?  I'm not saying that the private sector has all of the answers and government has no role in society.  Rather, what I am saying is that the private sector has a far better track record when it comes to innovative solutions to human problems than any government does, so why not give the private sector a little more deference when it comes to solving current human problems?

Note, too, that you will never find a finer expression of democracy than you see in free market capitalism where people vote every day with the fruits of their labor concerning what products, services and private sector solutions they most prefer.

[moda0306]

I disagree.  Many "laws" are simply contractual agreements between two parties and it is those parties who decide who interprets the agreements and settles any disputes arising thereunder.

In the private sector, there are mediators, arbitrators and other dispute resolution specialists who resolve disputes every day because parties agreed that this is the method they would use if a dispute arose.  No government is needed in these cases, just enlightened people who decided to make allowances for private sector solutions to any private sector problems that might arise.

Ahhh...so thats the crux. This perfect uncoercive society rests on perfectly enlightened people. Well, as soon as that happens, I agree that we can probably dissolve the government.

I didn't say anything about a perfect society.  It's just a matter of which direction you think its best to steer society.

Talking in terms of extremes is rarely helpful because the extreme expression of an idea will never happen.  We will always have government; it's just a matter of what type of government and how coercive it's going to be.  I would favor a less intrusive government with fewer coercive powers.  I'm surprised that these ideas would be viewed as controversial, considering they were apparently the principles on which our nation was founded in the first place.  It's not like they are revolutionary or incompatible for our foundational documents and ideas.

If a social entity that has cornered the market on the legal administration of violence tells me that there are no longer any property rights, what is it really saying?  Is it saying that there are no more property right or is it saying that all property rights of private citizens' now belong to the government?

Without property rights of some kind, no economic development occurs.  We can debate whether it would be a good or bad thing for no economic development to occur, but it's worth noting that without the economic development that gave us desks, chairs, computers, data sharing networks, industrialized food production and indoor climate control, rather than having this interesting discussion we would probably be plowing a field or feeding the chickens right now.

If human effort makes improvements to land or raw natural resources, there is always some expectation of property rights.  If you find me the most backward isolated jungle people in the world whose entire culture and belief system is based upon sharing everything with others, just see what happens if I roll into their village with a truck and start loading up all of their food and supplies.  The idea of sharing with others freely still implies a property right that is being shared in the first place.  Do you see what I mean?

Can you show me any productive human effort that increases the value of land or other natural resources that doesn't have some type of property right expectation associated with it?  Without the expectation of being able to control in some way the fruits of one's efforts, what possible reason would there be for anyone to do anything productive? 

Is there anyway to enforce property rights other than by violence? Can you think of a noncoercive market mechanism that will stop me from pulling all the nice bass out of your lake when Im hungry as hell?

I enforce property rights in my home every day and its virtually always through persuasion, even though 50 years ago a similar household might have resorted to coercion without giving it a second thought.

Why is it not possible for all of society to similarly evolve?

The only planet I see your and PS ideas suceeding on is the planet Vulcan. 

Isn't that what a communist would have said 100 years ago about the U.S. today?

One of the things that shocks people from some other parts of the world when they visit the U.S. is how honest people are in general.  This basic honesty makes it immensely easier to do business.  Without seeing it for themselves, these people would probably swear that such basic honesty among strangers was a fantasy.  I think that part of what makes people in the U.S. so honest in many settings is the fact that our society is so prosperous.  Prosperity makes many aspects of life easier, whether we are talking about reductions in disputes or honesty in business transactions. 

doodle, I assume you think of yourself as idealistic in your beliefs about the good that government can do in society.  Do you not see that I am similarly idealistic about the good that can be done in society without the necessity of government involvement?  I'm not saying that the private sector has all of the answers and government has no role in society.  Rather, what I am saying is that the private sector has a far better track record when it comes to innovative solutions to human problems than any government does, so why not give the private sector a little more deference when it comes to solving current human problems?

Note, too, that you will never find a finer expression of democracy than you see in free market capitalism where people vote every day with the fruits of their labor concerning what products, services and private sector solutions they most prefer.

MT,

A few things:

- It's one thing to call for a "less intrusive" government, but then we have to decide where we want it to intrude less, and what constitutes the least useful forms of intrusion, or even what constitutes intrusion at all.  Some may want to abolish the military but maintain a social safety net.  Others may want the opposite.  Just a thought.

- Do you really "enforce your property rights?"  Even private coercion that we recognized is something that is essentially backed by government.

- You mention what a communist would have said about the US, but you've said in the past that the U.S. maintains certain tenets of communism very robustly. I tend to think the US is more of a mixed economy, not fitting squarely into either "free market" or "centrally planned."  But it seems inconsistent to call the US quasi-communist in one breath, and then say "look, the commies were wrong, this actually works" in another breath.  Maybe I'm misinterpreting.

- I love many of the ideas and pontifications of our founding fathers, but their initial plan of how much to "reduce the role of government" failed (Articles of Confederacy).  Also, some could argue that dissecting power to the individual states hardly resulted in less evils perpetuated by government, either federal or state.  I think "small government" is an idea that's useful, but only in the context of creating a balance between liberty, security, fairness, productivity and prosperity.

Also, free market capitalism is only democratic if resources are already allocated fairly and properly.  I've said it before, but I think it underlies all the problems with how libertarians try to pose arguments:

We are NOT simply entities floating through space, free to interact with and entertain or serve each other as we choose.  We're all stuck on this island of limited resources together.  There is no such thing as perfect liberty in this environment, and any attempt to create it is likely to simply result in some withholding vital resources for someone else's labor.

I think what doodle and I are trying to say is NOT that government is super efficient at everything it tries to do, or is inherently made up of more quality people than society as a whole, or more impressive wealth-creation mechanisms, but that starting with this premise that private property and liberty are wholly natural in the ways most libertarians would like to see them work, and holding any government that tries to "redistribute" from that "natural" norm as being inherently coercive or confiscatory is starting from the wrong logical premise.

So when a libertarian wants to "reduce the role of government," they essentially mean take away safety nets but still allow the owners of the means of production to continue to glean benefits off of resources that aren't theirs, but were simply granted to them in a complex private/public mess called "society."  They're working from an incorrect premise on what a fundamentally free world looks like (or that it can actually occur), and anytime you deal with that you're going to have a "garbage in garbage out" scenario.  So doodle and I are stuck arguing about islands and anarchy every time we get in a debate about whether the government should do (insert role of government here), and some libertarian screams "coercion!" as soon as we say that there should maybe be a safety net or industry regulation.

For the record, I love the idea of starting our thoughts on the role of the state from the perspective of individual sovereignty, but one of the very next things we need to acknowledge after that is that when we're trapped on an island with limited resources, we've already inherently hampered our ability to exist in anything resembling true "liberty," and any attempt to create the illusion of that condition with "private property" is just confiscation/coercion in disguise.  It just happens to be a form of it that is inherently palatable to many people and lends itself to economic production, and therefore a robust society.

[Libertarian666]

The point is that someone has to make a decision and enforce a law regardless of their intelligence. In a house it is the parent and in society it is the government.

I disagree.  Many "laws" are simply contractual agreements between two parties and it is those parties who decide who interprets the agreements and settles any disputes arising thereunder.

In the private sector, there are mediators, arbitrators and other dispute resolution specialists who resolve disputes every day because parties agreed that this is the method they would use if a dispute arose.  No government is needed in these cases, just enlightened people who decided to make allowances for private sector solutions to any private sector problems that might arise.

Giving one group in society the power to use violence against everyone else is an offense against every peaceful person. Thus, the burden of proof is on those who claim the necessity for government, not on those who wish to live in peace with their fellow humans.

[MediumTex]

moda,

Do you think that the U.S. would be a better or worse place if the government was twice as large and intrusive and taxes were proportionally higher?  OTOH, what kind of place do you think the U.S. would be if the government was half as large and intrusive and taxes were proportionally lower?

I'm just trying to get a sense of everyone's conception of the optimal size and scope of government.  Perhaps its current configuration is considered perfect by some.

Another interesting question to ponder is what the most dramatic innovations in government have been in the last 1,000 years.  We know that science, business and other private sector activities have seen staggering gains in knowledge and understanding in the last 1,000 years, but my sense is that political leadership hasn't advanced quite as much.

If you had a "scientist" from 1013 meet up with a scientist from 2013, they might have a hard time even communicating because their bodies of knowledge are so different.  If, however, a political leader from 1013 met a politician from 2013, I'll bet they could have a great time swapping political war stories.

In other words, from my perspective the art and science of political leadership has made almost no progress at all in hundreds of years, while other technologies developed through human ingenuity have blossomed in almost unimaginable ways.  It's sort of a shame that we are all subject to coercive powers that are based upon such obsolete "technology", while other parts of our lives have advanced in such dramatic ways. 

There is a lot of cognitive dissonance for me in the idea that someone can be driving around in a car that is guided by a satellite navigation system and the driver is entertained by another satellite-based music system, and yet if he fails to stop for a stop sign he can be run off the road and beaten with clubs by representatives of the political establishment.  That sounds like the storyline about a bizarre foreign world from an episode of Star Trek.

[Libertarian666]

If you had a "scientist" from 1013 meet up with a scientist from 2013, they might have a hard time even communicating because their bodies of knowledge are so different.  If, however, a political leader from 1013 met a politician from 2013, I'll bet they could have a great time swapping political war stories.

In other words, from my perspective the art and science of political leadership has made almost no progress at all in hundreds of years, while other technologies developed through human ingenuity have blossomed in almost unimaginable ways.  It's sort of a shame that we are all subject to coercive powers that are based upon such obsolete "technology", while other parts of our lives have advanced in such dramatic ways. 

There is a lot of cognitive dissonance for me in the idea that someone can be driving around in a car that is guided by a satellite navigation system and the driver is entertained by another satellite-based music system, and yet if he fails to stop for a stop sign he can be run off the road and beaten with clubs by representatives of the political establishment.  That sounds like the storyline about a bizarre foreign world from an episode of Star Trek.

That's because there is nowhere for "the art and science of political leadership" to go. Theft ("taxation"), kidnapping and torture ("imprisonment"), and murder ("execution", "war", and "necessary use of deadly force") pretty much exhaust the possibilities.

[MediumTex]

If you had a "scientist" from 1013 meet up with a scientist from 2013, they might have a hard time even communicating because their bodies of knowledge are so different.  If, however, a political leader from 1013 met a politician from 2013, I'll bet they could have a great time swapping political war stories.

In other words, from my perspective the art and science of political leadership has made almost no progress at all in hundreds of years, while other technologies developed through human ingenuity have blossomed in almost unimaginable ways.  It's sort of a shame that we are all subject to coercive powers that are based upon such obsolete "technology", while other parts of our lives have advanced in such dramatic ways. 

There is a lot of cognitive dissonance for me in the idea that someone can be driving around in a car that is guided by a satellite navigation system and the driver is entertained by another satellite-based music system, and yet if he fails to stop for a stop sign he can be run off the road and beaten with clubs by representatives of the political establishment.  That sounds like the storyline about a bizarre foreign world from an episode of Star Trek.

That's because there is nowhere for "the art and science of political leadership" to go. Theft ("taxation"), kidnapping and torture ("imprisonment"), and murder ("execution", "war", and "necessary use of deadly force") pretty much exhaust the possibilities.

You don't think we're just waiting for the right group of political leaders to take us to the next level of understanding when it comes to the role of government in society?

[moda0306]

The point is that someone has to make a decision and enforce a law regardless of their intelligence. In a house it is the parent and in society it is the government.

I disagree.  Many "laws" are simply contractual agreements between two parties and it is those parties who decide who interprets the agreements and settles any disputes arising thereunder.

In the private sector, there are mediators, arbitrators and other dispute resolution specialists who resolve disputes every day because parties agreed that this is the method they would use if a dispute arose.  No government is needed in these cases, just enlightened people who decided to make allowances for private sector solutions to any private sector problems that might arise.

Giving one group in society the power to use violence against everyone else is an offense against every peaceful person. Thus, the burden of proof is on those who claim the necessity for government, not on those who wish to live in peace with their fellow humans.

Nobody really "gives government power" in an overt sense.  As an individual, I know what the consequences are of disobeying government, and I have a very, very small say in what the government does, and even if I can be a swaying force in what it does, I know it's just going to be a small amount either way from what would have been the result had I not entered government.

Even the president himself has only a limited amount of steering power on the direction government goes.

[moda0306]

moda,

Do you think that the U.S. would be a better or worse place if the government was twice as large and intrusive and taxes were proportionally higher?  OTOH, what kind of place do you think the U.S. would be if the government was half as large and intrusive and taxes were proportionally lower?

I'm just trying to get a sense of everyone's conception of the optimal size and scope of government.  Perhaps its current configuration is considered perfect by some.

Another interesting question to ponder is what the most dramatic innovations in government have been in the last 1,000 years.  We know that science, business and other private sector activities have seen staggering gains in knowledge and understanding in the last 1,000 years, but my sense is that political leadership hasn't advanced quite as much.

If you had a "scientist" from 1013 meet up with a scientist from 2013, they might have a hard time even communicating because their bodies of knowledge are so different.  If, however, a political leader from 1013 met a politician from 2013, I'll bet they could have a great time swapping political war stories.

In other words, from my perspective the art and science of political leadership has made almost no progress at all in hundreds of years, while other technologies developed through human ingenuity have blossomed in almost unimaginable ways.  It's sort of a shame that we are all subject to coercive powers that are based upon such obsolete "technology", while other parts of our lives have advanced in such dramatic ways. 

There is a lot of cognitive dissonance for me in the idea that someone can be driving around in a car that is guided by a satellite navigation system and the driver is entertained by another satellite-based music system, and yet if he fails to stop for a stop sign he can be run off the road and beaten with clubs by representatives of the political establishment.  That sounds like the storyline about a bizarre foreign world from an episode of Star Trek.

MT,

I would say that I'd have the government expand in some areas (environmental protection, more aggressive infrastructure expansion, SOME regulations, taxation of capital higher, certain holes in the social safety net higher), and reduce in others (reduce military, reduce SOME regulations, taxation of labor lower, certain moral hazards within the social safety net eliminated). I'd also probably combine some sort of amnesty/guest worker program for those already here with building walls and reducing legal immigration from either low-productivity or high-religious fundamentalism countries.

That's mostly federal level suggestions.  Similar at state/local, though, except with state taxes I'd have them be FAR less protectionist.

Your scientist/politician analogy is interesting but I think it would have far more to do with the actual act of politicking is the ugly side of government (and the private sector).  If you talked to a NASA engineer, or a civil engineer, or a traffic pattern planner, or a military weapons expert, or a sewer system manager, or a subway system manager, or a patent judge, or a structural engineer planning a bridge, and maybe even a criminal justice agent, I'd be willing to bet they'd have the same difficulty with speaking to their 1013 counterparts.  A lot of the things in government are inherently technical and facilitate production.


To your Star Trek analogy, I agree that there is something deeply odd about the apparent monopoly on violence our governments have.  It seems, though, that if combined with the right doses of restraint, that we can create a much, much more robust system that still allows for an immense amount of freedom, productivity, and prosperity... as long as you're willing to actually stop your car and recognize the authority by acting peacefully.  I think there is a HUGE difference between being murdered for (insert random act of nothing harmful here), and being murdered for stubbornly attempting to illogically spit in the face of the authorities, even if they shouldn't be recognized as such on any natural, moral level.

I use HB's measuring stick on this stuff... if I can pretty easily meander and "pretend" to recognize authority that I don't, I can live a remarkably free life.  I'm not going to take a page from the book of Libertarian666 and attempt to hold myself out as some sort of slave.  Especially when I have the freedom to move out if I wish... a freedom many slaves and genocide victims haven't had in the past.  In fact, I think it's bordering grossly insulting to hold ourselves out as such, compared to actual slavery or the Holocaust.

No offense, tech.

[doodle]

This is the argument as I understand it that MT is making. Its seems like a watertight deductive argument..


Coercion and violence are bad, government is a coercive entity, therefore government is bad.

However, while I dont disagree with the premise that coercion and violence are bad, what happens if we change things slightly.

Coercion and violence are necessary in an unenlightened society, government is a coercive entity, therefore government is necessary in an unenlightened society.

Now, you could substitute something other than government for number 2, but something has to go there. Otherwise you have to explain how exactly an unenglihtened group of people is going to resolve disputes and enforce decisions, property rights etc.

sounds to me you just made the case for MT's argument, if what you deduce is true which would you rather move toward? the enlightened society with limited and shrinking government or the unenlightened one run by a growing government made up of members of the same unenlightened group?

i personally vote for the former, limit government in all areas we are enlightened enough to handle, and work toward being free of them in those that remain. even if it never gets to the (likely unobtainable) ideal of enlightened anarchy it is what we should work toward, increasing government into more and more areas of individuals lives doesn't promote the kind of independent citizens that can live a coercion free existence......

i am waiting for the political slogan "better people = less government...less government = better people" to become popular

[MediumTex]

This is the argument as I understand it that MT is making. Its seems like a watertight deductive argument..

Coercion and violence are bad, government is a coercive entity, therefore government is bad.

You're in the ballpark, but your palette of only black and white leads to conclusions that are off the mark.

Here is how I might say it:

Coercion and violence are bad do not tend to bring out the best in people, government is often a coercive entity, therefore government is bad should be regarded with a high level of skepticism when it claims it is improving the lives of those subject to its coercive powers.

When regarded with the proper level of skepticism, the current government can be marginalized in the lives of most people who wish to minimize its role in their lives.  It's when a person looks to government in the way religious people look to the supernatural that frustration with its ability to deliver on its promises begins to occur.

It's hard to ignore the government, however, when the media makes us think that its every move and mis-step are somehow things that we should all be paying careful attention to.

As I noted in another thread, our media coverage of the government would be akin to a news program for antelopes running the same story every night proclaiming: "Cheetah Strikes Again!!!"

To me, an entity acting according to its nature is hardly newsworthy.

[doodle]

Simon, the problem with the argument that you are making is it contains a logical fallacy,

Coercion is neccesary in an unenlightened society, government is a coercive entity, remove government and people will behave in an enlightened fashion.

The conclusion does not logically follow...

it is no different than the fallacy that unenlightened people will use government coercion in an enlightened and just manner and not just use it to enslave others or for their own profit ...

i thing there is definitely something more to be said in favor of letting people be as free as possible and encouraging a culture of living up to the responsibility, over encouraging a culture of victim-hood and helplessness and using coercion to keep them in line.
doubly so when those determining what "in line is" and doing the coercion are as just as likely to be part of the problem as those being coerced

[doodle]

Mt

To me, an entity acting according to its nature is hardly newsworthy

Yes, but dont forget that its nature is a product of its environmental influences. Hence, men get the government which they deserve. Not to mention the nature of compromise (politics) is never pretty

We dont disagree about government at all actually. We disagree about the degree to which our society comprised of egocentric individuals can self organize and regulate in a manner that approximates somewhere that we would want to raise our children in. Not everyone lives in the kind of neighborhoods that you do.

[MediumTex]

Simon, the problem with the argument that you are making is it contains a logical fallacy,

Coercion is neccesary in an unenlightened society, government is a coercive entity, remove government and people will behave in an enlightened fashion.

The conclusion does not logically follow...

doodle, in case I don't tell you often enough I really appreciate your contributions a lot.

What would the Harlem Globetrotters be without the Washington Generals? 

[Pointedstick]

We dont disagree about government at all actually. We disagree about the degree to which our society comprised of egocentric individuals can self organize and regulate in a manner that approximates somewhere that we would want to raise our children in. Not everyone lives in the kind of neighborhoods that you do.

My response to this is that if we both acknowledge that we live in a society with egocentric, violent humans, and we both acknowledge that government is yet another organization of these same people, then it's difficult for me to see how we can expect the government to produce superior outcomes. Furthermore, if we both acknowledge that government is necessary in proportion to our degrees of egocentricity and violence, then it follows that the more enlightened we become, the less government we truly need. Can we agree on that?

Thus the solution to us being egocentric and violent is for us to become less egocentric and violent, not for us to designate a government to rule over us composed of certain of us who are just as violent and egocentric as the rest, or much more so.

[doodle]

Simon, the problem with the argument that you are making is it contains a logical fallacy,

Coercion is neccesary in an unenlightened society, government is a coercive entity, remove government and people will behave in an enlightened fashion.

The conclusion does not logically follow...

doodle, in case I don't tell you often enough I really appreciate your contributions a lot.

What would the Harlem Globetrotters be without the Washington Generals? 

Im going to decide which one of those teams represent me :-)