Question About Operation of Small Government

In a free market business world it is left to the consumer to decide among the competition that exists.

That's a nice analogy of your view of life. I would look at life more life many races, where you look for ways to gain an advantage that others may not have noticed, or employed, so that you can gradually acquire the "A" starting position.
And yes, I agree it doesn't seem reasonable or rational to look at life as instant success or instant failure based on a starting point. Are we back to Effort or Luck again?

Many who should by your rationale have been doomed to failure have achieved success in spite of presumed disadvantages. We're still in the wrong thread, this too should be in Effort or Luck.

I just admit that what can be need not be. I don't view advantages as unfairly distributed, but you might make a case that they are unequally distributed. That happens to be a fact of life.

 

Indie

You took the thread in this direction and anyway as I’ve pointed out ‘small government’ seems to be a smokescreen for a right wing agenda, I’m just trying to understand that agenda.
I mean one thing right wingers want to make small are those programmes that often help the disadvantaged.

So one child is born lucky and another unlucky, effort doesn’t seem to come into it. Equal effort could be applied but advantage and disadvantage would most likely make the outcomes wildly different.
And as I’ve said you think that is unfair but justified and your only reason for seeming to think that way is because that fits in with your bias and prejudices it doesn’t seem to have any logical, rational or reasonable foundation.
Have you an actual rational argument?
*

But is it fair that two people of equal strength and brightness could have very unequal outcomes not because of merit but because of what you admit are unfairly distributed advantages and disadvantages?
And the other thing is how do you know what strengths a person will have or how bright they may be when they are just a child?

Well yes you yourself see it as unfair but irrationally you also seem to think it just.
You still haven’t explained in any rational or reasonable why that is.

Can a baby earn advantages for itself?
I mean is it justified for a person born into advantage to retain exclusive rights to advantages they didn’t earn rather than share them with others who through no blame of their own are disadvantaged
Your answer so far has been yes, you readily admit that is unfair but at the same time think it justified.
As pointed out that doesn’t seem to be a rational or reasonable position.

Can a baby earn advantages for itself?

Well please do point out exactly where these reasonable and rational arguments are, because as you might have noticed I’m keeping track of what you’re saying and so far I haven’t seen them.

 

Indie

And you have said that government has the right to take, in the form of taxes.

Humans don’t live naturally; we have manipulated, changed and tampered with the world so that we don’t live as other animals.

We don’t live in a tree or a hole in the ground we build houses, offices and huge high-rises of man made brick and steel.

We don’t bark or grunt we have developed language and writing and communicate over man made telephones and optical cable or through satellites in space.

We don’t defecate where we stand we have sanitation, systems of man made reservoirs, piping and pumps that take away and in many cases clean up that waste.

We don’t wander open terrain grazing or hunting our food with tooth and nail, we have parcelled up land and call it property, we have thought up complex methods of exchange, from barter to paper money to virtual warcraft gold.

And we don’t live in herds or packs where might is right, we live in complex societies, with constitutions and laws; we appoint leaders and judges and create political systems. A lot of political thought and political history has been involved in what should be allowed and what shouldn’t over what was just and unjust. Over time some societies have grown that have created constitutions and laws to manipulate, change and tamper societies to suite what they see as been a better and more just existence.

Now it is possible to argue over whether these things are good or bad but I don’t think you can claim that humans are like “all other life forms that exist”.

So the argument that social unfairness should remain because it is ‘natural’ doesn’t wash since societies can and have changed what some have claimed is ‘natural’ to alleviate unfairness.

Now people can argue over what is fair and what isn’t but you have already acknowledge you think it unfair by saying ‘life is unfair’ in relation to it.

What you seem to be saying is that you know it is unfair but you like it to be unfair, want that unfairness to continue and even desire to increase the level of unfairness.

 

Indie

But there never has been and there never will be a free market.
Free market = Plutocratic Tyranny
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=353336&f=36

How can the market decide at birth what child is better than another child?

Can a baby earn advantages for itself?
I mean is it justified for a person born into advantage to retain exclusive rights to advantages they didn’t earn rather than share them with others who through no blame of their own are disadvantaged
Your answer so far has been yes, you readily admit that is unfair but none at the same time think it justified.
As pointed out that isn’t a rational or reasonable position.

Why should they have been doomed to failure? I’m not saying people cannot succeed with a disadvantage I’m saying that if advantage were distributed more evenly much more potential would be realised.

Fact of life - life isn’t fair - shit happens - these are not rational arguments as I’ve pointed out, it doesn’t have to be a fact of life, things don’t have to be so unfair and something could be done to limit the effects of the shit.

What you seem to be saying is you like this being a fact of life you want live to be unfair and you want shit to happen to people who through no fault of their own are born disadvantaged, and I wonder why?

 

Indie
You said - Less government IS good government. As Jefferson said "Those are governed best who are governed least."
And my comment on that was - That is a statement, a slogan, not an answer, I mean what is small and what large, you seem to presume that large is necessarily bad but its seems to me that just being ‘small’ doesn’t mean it will be good either, in fact if it is so ‘small’ as to be weak it is more likely to govern badly and be under the influence of those with power and influence.
You don’t address this but instead reply with a sneering -

The problem with this is that you’ve said government is required so you must be someone that requires government.
I mean you’ve never advocated anarchy as far as I know.
As to the ‘two types’ of people I’m sorry but I don’t think you are making much sense, can you explain yourself?
Anyway if we look over what’s been said my comment earlier seem to still relevant, the whole ‘small government’ argument just seems a smokescreen, and once the smoke has been cleared it quickly become obvious that what its trying to hide is 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.

 

Did I really? I don't know what you call a "right wing" agenda. Small government to me is the reduction of any political agenda to the bare minimum.

That's just one.

So you see success or failure in life as predetermined at birth and I don't.

I say you can make a case for unfairness, not that I really agree that anything is unfair that lacks premeditated intent with malice. What is the logic, rationale, and reasoning that makes you think that individuals in a society owe one another anything at all, or that it is the duty of government to create laws that make the members of the society more equal than they make themselves?

Would you consider it fair if the disadvantaged prevailed over the advantaged?

I never said I did.

Neither unfair nor unjust, just unequal.

Two words, greed and envy, those who are seen to have more are considered by those who have less to be greedy which is a natural exercise of envy. You wish to eliminate what you see as greed by elevating envy.

That's part of growing up.

How many times do you need to ask this same question? I've said numerous times already that it is justified and fair. What someone has, earned or gifted is their property to do with as they wish.

I don't admit it to be unfair, I only accept as fact that there are those who wish to dwell on it being unfair.

You don't wish to accept it as rational or reasonable.

Everyone has to start at some point in life, that's what is called effort, and some have to produce more than others to achieve the same or similar results.

I don't see how you begin with a premise that one human owes another human anything without the consent of each. Obviously you do, but have failed to provide that information.

 

Did I say unlimited right? Government requires some taxes in order to operate at all, but just how far should government be allowed to go?

We live within the confines of nature.

Have you ever lived in Viet Nam, Cambodia, Myanmar, or China?

Do you look at all those things to be supernatural?

The list goes on.

Is there a point?

And wars have been fought over what should or should not be allowed and what was found to be unjust as well. A more just existence?

Birth, life, and death is the life experience. Birth is by chance, life is lived by making choices within the limits one encounters, and death is a certainty for all.

Social inequality is natural, you achieve your own degree of fairness. Obama wrote of his father having said "Like water finding its level, you will always arrive at a career that suits you." It just may not be what you wish for.

Sure, life is unfair in that all can not be equal, but the fact remains it is life, so live it as best you can.

You only espouse what you wish to hear me say. We are not all the same, fairness is only achieved in the eyes of the beholder, and it is not for you or me to decide what is to be considered fair for another. If someone is poor but happy, should we change their life? If someone is rich and unhappy, what would you do for them?

 

There could very well be, but not as long as government keeps intruding.

I don't consider children marketable items. Do you?

You always seem to place fault on everyone but those you promote as disadvantaged. Most all of us living today are the product of persons who where disadvantaged in the past.

 

Small government protects the citizens from physical harm or property loss by others, police, military, courts. Some infrastructure might be promoted by government, but as always is at the expense of the people, and could easily be handled within the confines of States governments. There is very little that requires constant intrusive attention by a Centralized government, which enhances the possibility of corruption taking place.
Government does not free people, people free themselves and government then attempts to reduce those freedoms in order to control, manipulate, and prosper above the people.

 

Indie

Well all of what you have suggested so far would greatly increase the power and influence of wealth.

NO no no, completely wrong and clearly you having been paying attention, I know you’ve said you don’t read the things I’ve linked to but are you actually reading my posts, I do get the feeling sometimes that you’re not?
I’m not saying anybodies life is predetermined just that advantage and disadvantage can play a part in the determination.
A 12th century person born into serfdom wasn’t predetermined to remain a serf but the disadvantages of their position made it difficult to get away with. An black slave in 18-19th century America had the same problem as did the exploited workers in the factory systems of the 19-20th.
Many if not most of the advantages we have to day to gain success were fought for, but a lot of those things, like social programmes and welfare, people like you seem to wish to remove.

But people are not raised in a vacuum; a baby born into advantage doesn’t make those advantages it just has the luck to be born into a particular family.

Why would you say that?
*
And the other thing is how do you know what strengths a person will have or how bright they may be when they are just a child?

That’s because you can’t and that was my point.

So any inequality is fair and just? What if an inequality could be rectified would you argue against it been done?
*
You still haven’t explained in any rational or reasonable why that is.

So everyone who has ever fought for or will ever fight for some social justice or to make a society a fairer place is and was only ever motivated by envy?
*

Can a baby earn advantages for itself?

And that growing up can come with advantages or disadvantages that can have a major effect on how that growing up proceeds.
*

 

Indie

I mean is it justified for a person born into advantage to retain exclusive rights to advantages they didn’t earn rather than share them with others who through no blame of their own are disadvantaged. Your answer so far has been yes, you readily admit that is unfair but at the same time think it justified

No you specifically admitted it was unfair with the argument that it was justified because ‘life is unfair’.

You want me to accept ‘life is unfair’ or ‘shit happens’ as reasonable and rational arguments?

As I’ve said you are happy with an unfair system and seem to even want to make it even more unfair by removing social and economic programmes that help the disadvantaged.
*
Well please do point out exactly where these reasonable and rational arguments are, because as you might have noticed I’m keeping track of what you’re saying and so far I haven’t seen them.

I notice that you haven’t pointed out the reasonable and rational arguments you claim to have made?

*

And you have said that government has the right to take, in the form of taxes.

That is the question. But that wasn’t the point the point was that you have said that government has the right to take, in the form of taxes.

 

indie

Humans don’t live naturally; we have manipulated, changed and tampered with the world so that we don’t live as other animals.

Do we? Then please give us your argument, because you don’t give one in this reply.

I have given my reasons and your answers to them seem to come from a petulant child rather than a reasoning adult.

Lets look…

*
We don’t live in a tree or a hole in the ground we build houses, offices and huge high-rises of man made brick and steel.

Was that meant to be a ‘clever’ reply?

If you knew your history of such places you’d know they have produced wonderful architecture and literature.

*
We don’t bark or grunt we have developed language and writing and communicate over man made telephones and optical cable or through satellites in space.

But then I haven’t claimed they are supernatural, so what do you mean?
*
We don’t defecate where we stand we have sanitation, systems of man made reservoirs, piping and pumps that take away and in many cases clean up that waste.

We don’t wander open terrain grazing or hunting our food with tooth and nail, we have parcelled up land and call it property, we have thought up complex methods of exchange, from barter to paper money to virtual warcraft gold

Have you Attention Deficit Disorder?

The point is that “Humans don’t live naturally” its was at the beginning of my post. And you don’t seem to have a counter argument.

*
And we don’t live in herds or packs where might is right, we live in complex societies, with constitutions and laws; we appoint leaders and judges and create political systems. A lot of political thought and political history has been involved in what should be allowed and what shouldn’t over what was just and unjust. Over time some societies have grown that have created constitutions and laws to manipulate, change and tamper societies to suite what they see as been a better and more just existence.

This backs up my premise.

*

Now it is possible to argue over whether these things are good or bad but I don’t think you can claim that humans are like “all other life forms that exist”.

But unnatural things like medicine have made human birth and life a lot safer and those with access to such advantages live unnaturally long lives compared with what would happen in nature.

And in human life some unnatural advantages or disadvantages can affect the range and depth of a person’s choices.

*

So the argument that social unfairness should remain because it is ‘natural’ doesn’t wash since societies can and have changed what some have claimed is ‘natural’ to alleviate unfairness

A statement, not a counter-argument.

I’ve said many times that absolute equality is impossible but it is possible to bring about more equality than say in the US or UK societies of today.

I think you should read The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do better by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett

“Income inequality, they show beyond any doubt, is not just bad for those at the bottom but for everyone. More unequal societies are socially dysfunctional across the board. There is more teenage pregnancy, mental illness, higher prison populations, more murders, higher obesity and less numeracy and literacy in more unequal societies. Even the rich report more mental ill health and have lower life expectancies than their peers in less unequal societies.” Will Hutton

 

indie

But there never has been and there never will be a free market.
There could very well be, but not as long as government keeps intruding.
Again a statement not a counter argument to what was said in -
Free market = Plutocratic Tyranny
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/s...?t=353336&f=36



*
You said

In other words the free market would decide and who would succeed and who wouldn’t so I asked “how can the market decide at birth what child is better than another child?”
And you reply with

This just sounds like a petulant school kid, I’m pointing out the flaw in your argument you don’t like it so you go all snide and snotty, please try and act like an adult.

 

Indie

That is probably true but as I’ve pointed out before many of the things that produced that social mobility were fought for, “slavery was ended, later a decent working weeks was fought for and won meaning people had a life outside of work, health and safely laws were fought for in such industries as coal mining so that people didn’t have to work in dangerous or unhealthy conditions, I could go on and on. But the point is many of the things that allow people to improve themselves and their lives come from government action of some type.”

*

As I’ve pointed out before –

“As pointed out before protection is a vague term that is open to interpretation.
Protection from harm, protection from exploitation, protection from hardship, protection in sickness (all can be argued to involve aspects of extortion and aggression).

I mean if someone is born into power and wealth which gives them protection from exploitation and hardship and another is born into poverty which opens them to exploitation and hardship, then there is in that society an inequality of protection.

The society is benefiting one over the other and if the ones getting the greater benefit are few compared to the others then that society is benefiting the few and not the many?”

Slogans not arguments

As pointed out above people have fought to get government to protect them from exploitation and hardship often forced on them by the power and influence of wealth.

 

If you wish you reinterpret what I said to fit your agenda, perhaps you should post my responses as well.

 

You make nothing but statements, and feel it is my responsibility to refute them with some form of argument? I respond with a statement that has the intent of planting a seed for you to think about, but obviously I am planting them in infertile soil.

We were talking about a free market which has nothing to do with a new born child. A free market, unencumbered by government rules and regulations, and open to competition is regulated by the effects of the consumers. I'm not saying that no government rules or regulations should exist, but only those absolutely necessary and equally applicable to all. This is the only area I see government having a right or duty to provide any form of equality.

Please read some of your posts and look up the meaning of the words you throw out, like petulant, snide, and snotty. I try to refrain from denigrating others no matter how stupid, foolish or ignorant they might appear to be.

Our greatest disagreement appears to be that you look at government primarily as the source of control of the society while I look at it primarily as the source of protection.

 

That's true, some good things have come through government, but also with the consent of the governed. When government no longer feels it needs the consent of the governed, problems begin. In the U.S. the governed expect the politicians to support the will of the people once elected.

The protections I refer to are those that apply equally to all without taking or giving. Protection from criminals, breach of contract, attack from foreign nations, etc. Sickness, health care, food, clothing, housing, hardship are judgments which require funding and redistributing those funds as would be done under a Socialist form of government.

It was a statement, not a slogan. The power and influence of government bothers me much more than that of just wealth. Besides, as it is the greater power and influence government has, the more involved wealth becomes in running the government. If government could pass no laws beneficial to a wealthy person, what influence could his/her money provide?

 

Indie

LOL – well that is just basically a brush off – can you please address the points or explain why you can’t?

I ask again if you can’t defend these ideas, why do you hold on to them?

*

Again this is a brush off (with a little snide remark thrown in) – anyone that goes to the link…

Free market = Plutocratic Tyranny
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/s...?t=353336&f=36

….can see that I’ve set out a rational argument explaining why there never has been and never will be a ‘free market’, you haven’t put up any logical, reasonable or rational argument against it let alone refuted it, instead you continue to cling onto your faith in ‘free market’ ideas even when you seem incapable of defending them from criticism.
*

If you read through the sequence you will see that it does – you were implying that a free market would decide who would succeed and who not but as pointed out that cannot be true because people have advantages and disadvantages. So it is not so much the market which is deciding such things in such a system but birth.

Now you are not only happy with such inequality but wish to increase it which would just further undermine your argument.

Read some of your posts and you will see that my description are spot on – rather than answering plainly and honestly you often resort to the petulant, snide, or snotty remark. And again this seems more like a trick to misdirect people from the fact that you are still not addressing the criticisms levelled at your ideas.

And if you think my ideas or views are stupid, foolish or ignorant then put up some rational argument explaining why you think they are – the thing is that so far you haven’t done that, and I think you would have by now if you could.

They are the same thing.

You want to ‘control’ some forms of criminal activity so as to ‘protect’, person and property.

I want that as well but I also want to ‘protect’ society from the power and influence of wealth that would seek to corrupt any system to its own interests at the expense of other groups, by making sure ‘controls’ were in place to counter that influence.

And that is something you don’t want to do, in fact you seem to want to increase the power and influence of that very group.

*

But you have argued against democracy and want wealth to have extra voting power so that it can counter the votes of ‘the people’.
So it wouldn’t be ‘the will of the people’ but more like the will of the wealthier people.

But they are still protection just not the kind of protection you’d want to give. I mean you haven’t actually put up a rational argument why those other things shouldn’t be supplied other than you don’t want them to be and think it ‘socialism’.

No it was just slogans

‘Government does not free people, people free themselves’

‘Government wants to control, manipulate, and prosper above the people.’

There is still the problem, the flaw that you still haven’t addressed in this viewpoint highlighted at

Free market = Plutocratic Tyranny
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/s...?t=353336&f=36

The principle would be the same wealth, which already had power and influence because of its wealth would increase in power and corrupt any system to its own interests at the expense of other groups

Just saying that wouldn’t isn’t a rational answer to that flaw.

 

Could we at least try and stick to the topic? This one is titled "A question about operation of small government."

You can't say you didn't ask for it.

[/QUOTE]

I briefly looked at the link, read the OP, and a few responses. I suppose you would like someone to respond with examples of free market existences which you could then try to pick apart. In reality, you build a premise which, even if true, does not provide any rational solution unless it might be taking power from those who build their wealth by creating jobs that produce goods and services and handing it over to another group made up of politicians who produce nothing but instead use their power to distribute what is produced. Being free does not mean that we are made more equal, in fact it might be more accurate to say that it allows the opposite to occur. I don't see that as bad, but you do.

 

Indie

But some have the advantage of not having to worry about ‘necessity’ motivating them, for example where child labour is or has been practiced it wasn’t children born into advantage that had to work cleaning chimneys, working in factories or sewing cloths, they came from families where the motivation was necessity.

This is doesn’t seem to be about ‘freeing’ people but about one section of society trying to perpetuate or extend its own wealth and influence.