Question About Operation of Small Government

From what has been said so far what would ‘small’ government possibly be like?

A place with low or no taxation that would give the already rich an advantage

Little or no state welfare provision that would seem to make it more difficult to get out of poverty and make exploitation easier that would again help wealth

A system where people would have to pay for healthcare, education or training which again would seem to give wealth an advantage.

A system where the wealthy few would have increase voting rights that would allow them to counter the votes of other groups.

Few regulations and the repeal of all controls on wages, prices, rents, profits, production, and the abolition of employment laws that would all seem to put the poorer at a disadvantage.

In short a system of government that would only seem to help out the more advantaged in society at the expense of everyone else.

 

You could look at those who have achieved success as role models instead of viewing them disdainfully.

Some may be trying to perpetuate their wealth, others expanding it, and still others are trying to create it. Financial mobility exists within the U.S. society, it just isn't something that occurs easily or without diligent pursuit.

 

Low taxes.

Minimal welfare, except in the case of those physically or mentally incapacitated. The best assistance is that which puts people to work in ways that they become greater contributors to society than a burden upon society.

Certainly people should have to pay for health care or health insurance. Education is something that should be funded by ALL citizens, and controlled locally, not nationally but with some clear and concisely defined national standards. Teachers should be accountable to the parents who have children in the schools.

You seem to be hung up totally on the wealthy. How do you propose making them less wealthy? Tax them?

 

Indie

You seem to equate success with admirable but that is not always the case, Hitler and Stalin were successful at least for a time so should I see them as a role model? Richard Fuld was seen as a success up until he steered Lehmann Brothers into the ground, should I see him as a role model? But then many think Vincent Van Gogh a great artist and would love to be able to emulate his talent but he was never a success in his lifetime.

But putting that aside the question is again – what has a baby achieved beyond being born and no one knows what achievements a baby may be capable of if it’s potential is realised.
But a baby’s success at being born into advantage cannot be seen as a role model for babies yet unborn because people cannot choose to whom they are born.

*

But social mobility in the US is not that great, the top countries being Denmark, Norway and Finland.

 

So, your solution to the lack of opportunity here in America is to leave one's family, friends, home and country?

Should we change the slogan on the Statue of Liberty to read, "Please take our tired, our poor, our huddled masses yearning to breathe free, we no longer want to share the Dream?"

.

 

I never said there was a lack of opportunity in the U.S., but if the grass looks greener on the other side of the ocean, pack up the family and friends and pursue your dreams. There's always someone looking to come into the U.S. and they seem to find opportunity where many Americans do not.

That excerpt, from the sonnet "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.", doesn't imply what you appear to think it does. It is called the "Statue of Liberty" based on the Roman goddess Libertas. Would you prefer it read "Come, all you tired, poor, huddled masses, and live off the rich."?

 

Indie

Potential can be easily seen in hindsight and someone who hadn’t given it much thought might think that potential will always be recognised (‘true’ potential), but potential is unknowable and might not be seen or realised it is -

You have already agreed that a baby’s potential is unknowable.

You already agree that some baby’s are born into advantage and others into disadvantage, a fact which will impact on their lives and can give them greater or lesser opportunities to realise their potential.

You agree this is unfair.

Your argument so far seems to be that you like this unfairness and even want to make your society even less fair.

My question is why?

*

Again a petulant and snotty reply rather than you addressing the flaws in your argument, which means they remain flawed.

But again it gives some insight into your thinking. We used to get a lot of people coming here during the Bush years, who’d say much the same thing to people that disagreed with the Bush Admin’s policies “love it or leave it” was they’d cry

But this is the question, if you think your society can be improved made better why wouldn’t you stay to try and make it better?

And what about internationalists people that want to see things better everywhere they can’t go anywhere else.

 

Rather than continually trying to tell me what I agree to, you might do better to ask if you understand what I agree to, as often you don't appear to quite understand what it is that I do, in fact agree to.
A baby's potential is unknown, which is not quite the same as unknowable. But then, who is best qualified to determine a baby's potential? And how and when is that potential made known? Whose responsibility is it to determine someones potential?

I assume, advantage remains to be wealth? Sure some persons are born with the advantage of wealth, but it is not a fact that only those born into wealth are successful in life and those not are certain to fail. Often being born poor can be motivational and being born into wealth can lead to laziness and eventual failure and loss of inherited wealth. You state it to be a fact which will impact on their lives, while in truth it is only a fact that could impact on their lives, if they allow it. Each individual in a free society should recognize as fact that they alone are responsible for their successes or failures, and that they are not poor simply because someone else is rich.

Only in the same vein that life is not fair, in a way equal to all. Many things in life could easily be claimed to be unfair, wealth one is born into is but one and no way the most important relative to ones success or failure in life.

I simply life with what you claim to be unfairness, and expect each individual who exists within a society to look within themselves to find where they can achieve some success in life, and not look for government to punish those who are successful in order to raise their status in life.

Why what?

Should I take such remarks to be a display of arrogance or ignorance?

So now it's those who disagree with the Obama/Democrat agenda who spout "love it or leave it"? I might add that I didn't agree with a lot of Bushes agenda, he too leaned left in my opinion.

I do what I can, and don't have to reside there to accomplish anything. Besides, I left primarily because of the climate, and family. My wife is Asian.

Perhaps you could expand on that? I have no problem going anywhere I wish to. In the areas I live, all residents are quite content with their lives. I chalk that up to the fact that government rarely intrudes upon us.

 

Indie

LOL – oh I’d love to know what you think BUT there is a tad problem – you don’t seem willing to talk openly and honestly, many of my queries are met with evasion.

It has been difficult but I think I have a handle on your beliefs and I’ve also presented a number of criticisms of them that you once again are failing to address.

And how exactly does that work you think the unknowable is knowable?

I’m just pointing that that many peoples potential could be greatly enhanced if they had more access to advantage.

*

You already agree that some baby’s are born into advantage and others into disadvantage, a fact which will impact on their lives and can give them greater or lesser opportunities to realise their potential.

Oh indie I wish you would read the posts.

I’ve never said that people (to whomever or wherever they are born) can’t succeed in life, I’m just pointing that that many peoples potential could be greatly enhanced if they had access to advantage, and that doesn’t mean wealth but the advantages that are often coupled with wealth in unequal societies. We have been through this before you know; could you please try and keep up?

*

To reapeat -

The greatest effect on a person’s life is where and to whom they are born. This can give someone advantages or disadvantages that can affect their whole lives and their possibility of having success or failure, and long before they have the independence to take certain actions themselves.

A baby hasn’t the ability to allow or not allow things to happen to it, it cannot for example allow itself to be born into advantage. A child may or may not take advantage of any advantages open to it, but that is the point if those advantages are not available they cannot be taken advantage of.
Again we have been through this before.

*

You already agree that some baby’s are born into advantage and others into disadvantage, a fact which will impact on their lives and can give them greater or lesser opportunities to realise their potential.

Can a baby survive ‘alone’?

How can a baby be responsible for who or where they are born?
As pointed out before your viewpoint of individual responsibility seems fundamentally flawed.

And you don’t seem able to address that flaw.

 

Indie
You agree this is unfair.

That’s it?

Do you ever think things through before saying something; it’s a good habit to take up, and one you really should develop if this is any guide.

OK – well quite obviously fairness isn’t equal, some people are blessed others not and in many ways and in many things. You have even stated that yourself. That is one flaw in this argument and -

Next as I’ve said many, many times now (again I wish you’d read the posts) some unfairness’s can be rectified or mollified. And if something is ‘unfair’ why shouldn’t there be an attempt to make thinks fairer?

*

Your argument so far seems to be that you like this unfairness and even want to make your society even less fair.

First it was you who said it was unfair, you agree that it is unfair.

Next how does a baby look within it’s self?

*

Your argument so far seems to be that you like this unfairness and even want to make your society even less fair. My question is why?

Please don’t play dumb you are not dumb and every time you play dumb it just highlights even more that you are not addressing the criticisms of your argument.

Just a statement of fact

The statement about emigration being an option came across as petulant and snotty

Petulant – peevish; contemptuous.
Snotty - ill-tempered; impertinent

And it didn’t do anything to address the flaws in your argument.

Again stop playing dumb you are not dumb, it wasn’t anything to do with Obama or Bush it was about the attitude, the mindset, telling someone to leave rather than tackling the criticisms that had been raised.

*

It is about everywhere and anywhere, it is not specific to the US or UK, it’s in the wording - “your society” – any society.

*

And what about internationalists people that want to see things better everywhere they can’t go anywhere else.

I don’t know where you live but you do seem to have a – I’m all right jack – attitude.

I don’t think there will ever be a perfect society, but if something is ‘unfair’ in a society that could be made fair or less unfair shouldn’t there be an attempt to make thinks fairer?

You seem to saying no and I’m wondering why?

 

It should be obvious that as a child develops, ages and matures its potential begins to become knowable.

Possibly, and possibly not.

I don't already agree to anything until I've stated that I agree. If you are implying born into a family with wealth as being an advantage, certainly I would say that such occurrence is a fact, while I don't agree that opportunities are necessarily limited or enhanced, nor do I agree that the realization of any potential is diminished.

All societies are unequal, as are all humans regardless of wealth.

Each person is different, some people gain success in life due to what you see as a disadvantage by allowing that to be a motivating factor, while others may fail simply because they allow the perception of disadvantage to become an excuse for their failure. Not all can be the best, but all should strive to be the best they can.

Perhaps good parenting should be taught in school.

No, and that's why parents should be held responsible for bringing a child into the world.

I've never claimed that babies have any responsibilities.

Actually you have not demonstrated what you claim to be a flaw. Individual responsibility is simply taking responsibility for your own actions. What you are trying to do is impose collective responsibility upon individuals without allowing choice, which I firmly believe to fall in the category of charity, which should be sourced by individuals and not mandated by a government.

 

That's the natural state of things. Living successfully should require some effort on the part of each individual should it not?

Some unfairness can be rectified, it just depends on what it is and how it is accomplished.

I've never stated that I wished to make any society less fair, I simply have stated that much, or most of what you feel needs to be made more fair, and how you would like to see it accomplished, goes beyond what a government should be allowed to do in a free society.

I've said that much of life can be perceived as unfair from various individuals viewpoints.

It first must age and mature somewhat.

You've asked that and I've answered it.

It depends on what you feel to be unfair and how you propose it should be made more fair.

Your and my society was a reference to my understanding that you are a citizen of the UK, and not the US. I happen to be a US citizen although my wife is not so we live in Asia near her family, which is a Communist government, but as we live far from the main population we have very little government intrusion into our life. If you were to visit you would really have something to complain about related to fairness, but no one seems to be unhappy with their life, and in many ways we are more free than those living in the developed world, just we have much less, and no taxes.

 

Indie

Maybe you should look up potential, what you are talking about is the child’s current abilities but they will be linked to upbringing and environment which will be greatly influenced by what advantages or disadvantages it has encountered.

Remember the race –

Let us imagine a 100 metre race with four runners (A,B,C,D) all of which have the mental and physical potential to win, so that in a fair race it would be impossible to tell which one would win.
But just before the start one runner (D) is left at the 100m mark while another (C) is placed at the 80m mark and the next (B) is placed at the 50m mark and the last (A) is placed just 10m from the finish line.
They all have a good race and put in an equal amount of effort into winning.

Now from been impossible to say who’d be the winner it now becomes possible to work out the outcome, A followed by B followed by C with D coming in last.

The runner that only had to travel 10m ‘succeeded’ and the disadvantaged runners ‘failed’.

The question is was it a fair race, your answer is not it isn’t BUT you thing that it is justifiable and that doesn’t seem rational or reasonable.
I know some would argue that people are not all equal, some people have physical and mental advantages (or disadvantages), BUT the question then is how can someone gauge that in advance? You yourself have admitted that it is virtually impossible to gauge the potential of a baby; so much so that you think it not even worth trying.

So what you seem to be doing is gauging people on outcome.
But that is a bit like standing at the finish line of the race described above and declaring that the runner that only travelled ten yards and won is a much better runner and more worthy athlete than the loser who had the whole 100 metres to run.

Again that doesn’t seem reasonable or rational.

So advantage doesn’t give an advantage and a disadvantage doesn’t disadvantage?

It doesn’t seem very rational

Once more look above at the race.

*

But some societies are more unequal than others and societies can be changed to bring about more equality.

 

Indie

Are you saying that those born with advantage will never be the type of people who are motivated because they already have advantage, of course not so what is your point?
I think people should be allowed to try and realise their potential, whatever that is.
But whereas I’m trying to increase people’s possibilities of realising that potential you seem to want and limit it.

Maybe it should, but that doesn’t address the issue that’s raised.

But can the child be blamed for the actions of a parent? You’ve already answered no, so what is your point?

Your argument seems to be that solely through its own efforts an individual should be completely responsible for earning the advantages it receives in life.

But a baby cannot be responsible for the advantages or disadvantages that it born into.

The flaw is that babies cannot take responsibly for their own actions or have responsibility for being born into advantage or disadvantage.

But you are not opposed to the principle of collective responsibility without allowing choice; your ‘small’ government would still enforce laws and impose taxes.

You just seem to want those laws and taxes to be more beneficial to the few rather than the majority.

 

Advantages and disadvantages occur throughout life, it's something we need to learn to deal with.

The best thing to do is enter races that you have a chance of winning or at least coming in better than last place. People have to learn to take responsibility for their own lives.

Faux equality only brings down a society. As unequal as you seem to view the U.S., even a majority of the poor have well beyond that of the poor and even some of the middle classes in many countries. I've seen homeless people in Sunnyvale, California living under a bridge with electricity, color TV's and refrigerators.

 

Indie

If something is ‘unfair’ in a society that could be made fair or less unfair shouldn’t there be an attempt to make things fairer?

You seem to be saying no and I’m wondering why?

So now you are saying that the disadvantaged shouldn’t even be allowed in the same races as the advantaged?

You want segregation?

So even through you had two people with the exact same potential to win you wouldn’t even allow them to compete against each other at all?

You don’t like the idea of advantage being challenged?

As I’ve commented you seem to like having an unfair system and even want one that is even more unfair.

*

Can a baby take responsibility for its own life?

Your argument seems to be that solely through its own efforts an individual should be completely responsible for earning the advantages it receives in life.

But this seems to be totally undermined by your assertion that people are entitled to advantages that they never earned through individual effort.

There doesn’t seem to be a rational way to marry the two viewpoints.

*

To recap - this again just seems like the same old right wing political agenda which is about preserving or increasing the power of those with advantage at the expense of everyone else.

It’s not about better government but cutting their taxes, it’s not about efficient government but about cutting the benefits going to the disadvantaged and it’s not about ‘freeing’ people but about trying to perpetuate their own wealth and influence.

 

Be specific, it's difficult to answer a question without knowing what we are talking about.

Not at all, but it would be an exercise in futility.

Are you trying to bring race into the conversation? Assuming not, let's just say that people should compete in areas where they are most competent.

Isn't this the way the free market works most efficiently?

If more than one person or company can avail themselves of any advantage then they should challenge each other. There need not be a clear winner as each may find some success.

I don't find a free market to be so unfair.

Not while it's a baby.

Didn't I answer this in the other thread?

This one also.

And this one.

If you spent half as much time looking for where you might have an advantage as you do complaining you might achieve some success in life. It's out there, you just have to look for it, and quit feeling that you're owed something by those who have achieved success.

The solution is simple, get a job, it benefits everyone.

 

Indie
If something is ‘unfair’ in a society that could be made fair or less unfair shouldn’t there be an attempt to make things fairer? You seem to be saying no and I’m wondering why?

Please don’t play dumb you are not dumb.
You seem to be saying that if something is ‘unfair’ in a society that could be made fair or less unfair there should be no attempt to change things for the better and I’m asking why?

*

There never has been and never will be a ‘free market’ as pointed out at –
Free market = Plutocratic Tyranny
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=353336&f=36

That is because ‘free market’ ideas are dangerous if unregulated and become increasingly so if regulation is relaxed.

Can you explain what you mean?

 

The ‘small’ government envisioned by some seems to be based in no small way on free market ideology, with services and utilities been run by the ‘private sector’.

The thing is that the private sector is motivated by profit not public service; it’s not about the public good but a good bottom line.

And how do you bring in ‘profit and loss’ into such things as a social worker trying to spot child abuse?

Well some argue that all areas of government that cannot turn a profit for a corporation or business should not be undertaken by government (other than defence).

If people hadn’t personal resources and needed help they would have to look for assistance from such things as charity and social programmes (such as the social worker trying to spot child abuse) would also have to rely on charitable donations to exist.

The thing is that the reason why many social programmes became in some way sponsored by government is that they couldn’t survive on charity alone. The question is would the loss of such programmes make society a better or worse place?

Also while it is possible to turn over utilities and services over to private firms that doesn’t mean they are privately funded, which just means you are transferring public money from an accountable (and in a democracy changeable) public body to an unaccountable and undemocratic private corporation, and the costs may be not that different.