• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should government exist... at all?

Should government exist... at all?

  • Yes

    Votes: 42 87.5%

  • No

    Votes: 6 12.5%
  • Total voters
    48
megaprogman said:
Any problem that needs to be solved is going to involve a portion of the population that will not go along with it for one reason or another, they will impede solutions or progress.
Click to expand...

Can you give an example of the sort of problem you have in mind? We've already got the problem of building roads, water mains, bridges, tunnels, and dams.
 
Centinel said:
Can you give an example of the sort of problem you have in mind? We've already got the problem of building roads, water mains, bridges, tunnels, and dams.
Click to expand...

Mostly I am thinking of structural improvements, such as mass education, some sort of health care system, communications systems, safety net. That sort of stuff. It's better for society to have these things and we all end up better off because of them, but there will always be some who don't like one or more improvement for one reason or another, it's better to not let them drag down the rest of society with them in their ignorance.
 
Centinel said:
I think I understand. Only the government would provide the solution to building roads, water mains, bridges, and dams.
Click to expand...
You're trying to get people to paint themselves into a corner and not really participating in the conversation.
 
megaprogman said:
Mostly I am thinking of structural improvements, such as mass education, some sort of health care system, communications systems, safety net. That sort of stuff. It's better for society to have these things and we all end up better off because of them, but there will always be some who don't like one or more improvement for one reason or another, it's better to not let them drag down the rest of society with them in their ignorance.
Click to expand...

So you're saying the the problems of educating people, providing health care, building communications systems, and caring for the indigent cannot be solved by any other agency than government?
 
radcen said:
You're trying to get people to paint themselves into a corner and not really participating in the conversation.
Click to expand...
I'm trying to better understand the arguments for why government is necessary.
 
Centinel said:
So you're saying the the problems of educating people, providing health care, building communications systems, and caring for the indigent cannot be solved by any other agency than government?
Click to expand...

These types of issues tend to have a few features.
1. Any significant gaps in coverage pretty much screws up the whole thing
2. Relying on people's good nature is never going to work well in a large and complex society. This sort of thing works great in a small town, but it always depends on relationships because that is how people function.
3. These sorts of things tend to need large scale coordination

When I think about the idea of charity handling this sort of thing, I am reminded of Haiti. When the earth quake hit, the red cross was flooded with cash and a few things happened.
1. People got pissed that the red cross did not spend all of it immediately and tried to hold money back for long term concerns (this hits points 1 and 3 above in terms of issues.) Funding to the red cross dried up quickly because haiti is another country, out of sight, out of mind (point 2). Because there was no real coordination (the red cross only had resources to do so much) the people in Haiti are still loving in poverty camps, having huge problems with water born illnesses, crime, lawlessness and other typical problems of poverty. One of the major issues there is that land deed records were somewhat destroyed during the earth quake so nobody knows who owns what, so the whole private property angle, pulling yourself up by your boot straps idea didn't pan out either.

A similar thing happened last year when several places were hit by tornados in the south and near Joplin. There is a section of the town I live in right now where you can still see tornado paths with ruined houses and what not from this time period. People forgot about the problem.

Ultimately, this is a problem of the general public vs experts. Experts tend to be able to keep focus over the long term and can be protected by an entity such as a government to do actual long term good rather than what happened in haiti.

This is what I see as some of the major differences between private and public approaches to issues like this.
 
Last edited:
megaprogman said:
These types of issues tend to have a few features.
1. Any significant gaps in coverage pretty much screws up the whole thing
2. Relying on people's good nature is never going to work well in a large and complex society. This sort of thing works great in a small town, but it always depends on relationships because that is how people function.
3. These sorts of things tend to need large scale coordination

When I think about the idea of charity handling this sort of thing, I am reminded of Haiti. When the earth quake hit, the red cross was flooded with cash and a few things happened.
1. People got pissed that the red cross did not spend all of it immediately and tried to hold money back for long term concerns (this hits points 1 and 3 above in terms of issues.) Funding to the red cross dried up quickly because haiti is another country, out of sight, out of mind (point 2). Because there was no real coordination (the red cross only had resources to do so much) the people in Haiti are still loving in poverty camps, having huge problems with water born illnesses, crime, lawlessness and other typical problems of poverty. One of the major issues there is that land deed records were somewhat destroyed during the earth quake so nobody knows who owns what, so the whole private property angle, pulling yourself up by your boot straps idea didn't pan out either.

A similar thing happened last year when several places were hit by tornados in the south and near Joplin. There is a section of the town I live in right now where you can still see tornado paths with ruined houses and what not from this time period. People forgot about the problem.

Ultimately, this is a problem of the general public vs experts. Experts tend to be able to keep focus over the long term and can be protected by an entity such as a government to do actual long term good rather than what happened in haiti.

This is what I see as some of the major differences between private and public approaches to issues like this.
Click to expand...

Okay I'm adding them to the list. That brings the list to: building roads, communications systems, water mains, bridges, tunnels, and dams; educating people; providing health care; and caring for the indigent. Only the government can provide solutions to these problems.
 
1 anarchist in the message boards.. I'm somewhat surprised by that.
 
OnWisconsin said:
1 anarchist in the message boards.. I'm somewhat surprised by that.
Click to expand...

I agree, groups like libertarians and anarchists tend to be over represented in boards like these in terms of message demographics vs real world demographics.
 
Centinel said:
I don't quite understand what you mean. Could you explain further?
Click to expand...

An externalities is when a voluntary transaction between two neighbours affects an uninvolved third party. They can either be positive such as scientist providing research that becomes public knowlege or negative like cigarette smoke and buds littering the pavement. Consider an example:

I like to play the drums and so I go to the music store and buy myself some drums. The music store owner is pretty happy to sell me a drum kit and i'm pretty happy with my purchase but you're not. As my neighbour, you get to hear me playing at all kinds of night. You as a third party have had a negative effect from the transaction. Now you and I could go and negotiate a contract and pay you compensation, but such a process is long, expensive and ask the question, "who has a right to what?" and I would have to negotiate several different contracts with my neighbours. Instead we rely on council (government) by-laws that tend to limit noise later in the night.

One of the main reasons, I believe we should tax cigarettes is because of externalities. There is a private cost to smoking (the actual cost of purchasing the cigarettes) and a social cost( the second-hand smoke, the litter and also the increased stress on the medical system) only the private cost is paid by the smoker. The aim of the tax is to increase the price to include the social cost and better reflect the true cost of smoking. This type of tax is known as a pigovian tax and it's one of the most important functions of the government. Protecting third parties from the effects of voluntary transactions.

I don't think I cocked that up too much.
 
Centinel said:
I'm trying to better understand the arguments for why government is necessary.
Click to expand...
With all due respect... I like you and respect you (seriously)... whenever I see somebody trying to "better understand" a political argument what they're really trying to do is draw the other person(s) out so they can shoot down the points one by one. No offense intended, but I cannot remember an instance where it turned out otherwise.
 
radcen said:
With all due respect... I like you and respect you (seriously)... whenever I see somebody trying to "better understand" a political argument what they're really trying to do is draw the other person(s) out so they can shoot down the points one by one. No offense intended, but I cannot remember an instance where it turned out otherwise.
Click to expand...
Dang it, my evil plot has been foiled! :twisted:
 
That one "no" votes , from a libertarian extremest ?
Even in an absolutely perfect world, there is a need for government...and this would be 100% community service - gratis - and no taxes...
We are slowly progressing toward this, achievable within the next million years...
Achievable ?
 
Stewart said:
An externalities is when a voluntary transaction between two neighbours affects an uninvolved third party. They can either be positive such as scientist providing research that becomes public knowledge or negative like cigarette smoke and buds littering the pavement. Consider an example:

I like to play the drums and so I go to the music store and buy myself some drums. The music store owner is pretty happy to sell me a drum kit and I'm pretty happy with my purchase but you're not. As my neighbour, you get to hear me playing at all kinds of night. You as a third party have had a negative effect from the transaction. Now you and I could go and negotiate a contract and pay you compensation, but such a process is long, expensive and ask the question, "who has a right to what?" and I would have to negotiate several different contracts with my neighbours. Instead we rely on council (government) by-laws that tend to limit noise later in the night.

One of the main reasons, I believe we should tax cigarettes is because of externalities. There is a private cost to smoking (the actual cost of purchasing the cigarettes) and a social cost( the second-hand smoke, the litter and also the increased stress on the medical system) only the private cost is paid by the smoker. The aim of the tax is to increase the price to include the social cost and better reflect the true cost of smoking. This type of tax is known as a pigovian tax and it's one of the most important functions of the government. Protecting third parties from the effects of voluntary transactions.

I don't think I cocked that up too much.
Click to expand...

OK, now in the absolutely perfect world, mans sensitivities would be far greater than todays...the same for tolerances....But, is it possible for man to be "perfect" ??
Even if "perfect" there is still a need for government.
The drums are a good example.The buyer/player should have proof that he has a sound-proof room and/or the neighbors permission..
But, who handles the paperwork, the system, the enforcement ?
Same with the smoking...and who is to say that the "perfect" man cannot smoke...
In my day, this smoke-situation was far worse..
We are progressing.
 
radcen said:
Should government exist... at all?
Click to expand...

Yes, anarchy doesn't work. There is a base necessity for some amount of government.
 
jpevans said:
Seriously, are you promoting a One World Government? A No on One World Government, is not a vote for anarchy!
Click to expand...
No, I'm not promoting a one world government. I'm pointing out that in the absence of one single government, what we have are groups of people living in a state of anarchy with respect to other groups of people. There are really only two alternatives: a one world government, or anarchy.
 
Last edited:
Centinel said:
No, I'm not promoting a one world government. I'm pointing out that in the absence of one single government, what we have are groups of people living in a state of anarchy with respect to other groups of people. There are really only two alternatives: a one world government, or anarchy.
Click to expand...

Are you so blind? Is what we have around here anarchy? Or a One World Government?
 
earthworm said:
OK, now in the absolutely perfect world, mans sensitivities would be far greater than todays...the same for tolerances....But, is it possible for man to be "perfect" ??
Even if "perfect" there is still a need for government.
The drums are a good example.The buyer/player should have proof that he has a sound-proof room and/or the neighbors permission..
But, who handles the paperwork, the system, the enforcement ?
Same with the smoking...and who is to say that the "perfect" man cannot smoke...
In my day, this smoke-situation was far worse..
We are progressing.
Click to expand...

What did I just read and why did you quote me?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom