I’d like to comment on the trust of this comment, if I may, mssmith.
I worked in government…albeit a long time ago. In the early 60’s I was a claims examiner/adjuster for the Social Security Administration. We had excellent workers in our office, and we had terrible workers. There were associates who worked hard, diligently, and with true concern for the people who came to us with questions and requests; there were others who made my skin crawl.
I’ve seen that same dichotomy in the work force of just about every private sector employer for whom I have worked since. And in the work forces of the various private sector businesses I’ve come into contact as a customer.
In my opinion, there is no appreciable difference between the dedication or competence of the work-force in the public and private sector.
The problem with our economy is that there is a significant segment who simply do not add to productivity…and in many cases, who actually decrease productivity by their presence.
If you work in the private sector, I would almost bet you know of several people who would help the productivity of your organization by simply doing nothing.
We have a saying in my industry (management consulting). If you can’t be part of the solution, there is a great deal of money to be made prolonging the problem.
I view the purpose of government in largely (but not entirely) utilitarian terms: The goal should be to minimize suffering and maximize happiness amongst the populace.
A true utilitarian might say that if someone had five organs that could be harvested from their body that will save five other lives but kill the donor, it would be acceptable to harvest those organs even without the donor’s consent. But I wouldn’t go that far.
I think we should respect certain fundamental individual rights (life, free speech, habeus corpus, the right not to be tortured, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure), but besides those few exceptions the government should have wide latitude in achieving those ends.
From the evidence I’ve examined, the best form of government to accomplish these goals are Social Democracies like what we see in Europe. Neither communism nor pure free market capitalism, based upon the evidence of history, are ideal for maximizing happiness and minimizing suffering.
So if we decided that it was in the public interest to have slaves, that would be ok? How about if it was in the public interest to kill Bill Gates and use his money to give to poor people?
I am with Stratocaster on this one especially this:
*Rights the government need concern itself with are passive rights–i.e., those rights for which people require no assistance in enjoying the benefit, other than making sure someone else doesn’t step on them.
*
The government should have an eye toward the long term welfare of the population.
Maybe in the short term, it’s good to take all the rich’s stuff and give it to the poor. But happens when brilliant and talented people decide not to stick their necks out and make useful inventions and businesses anymore? Not a very good long term strategy.
There’s an old saying: You can shear a sheep many times, but you can only skin it once.
In the short term, we might be happier if we cut down all the old growth redwood trees and used them to make extra soft toilet paper (older trees can make softer fibers). But future generations would be deprived of the joy of getting to look at those trees because we decided to wipe our asses with them instead.
Considering that the slaves would BE the public, and that slavery is a bad thing in itself, no.
For it to be even arguably “in the public interest” to kill him, he’d have to be a serial killer or an enemy agent. And I DO think it would be a social good for the wealthy to be taxed more. And if it was proven in court that his wealth was gained illegally, I would certainly consider taking it all justifiable.
So Der Trihs, you believe that anything that is a “bad thing in itself” is not a legitimate government function? Can you tell us how you determine whether something is or is not a “bad thing in itself”?
The Golden Rule is a useful rule of thumb; would YOU want to be a slave? If you were going to be magically transported to a new world and had no way of knowing what position you would be in, would you want “slave”, “starving to death”, or “involuntary organ donor” to be one of the possible options?
That’s one of the places where the minimal government people fail on a moral level; their position is based on the firm belief of their own superiority and good fortune. THEY will never need help, THEY are too smart to be cheated; and they care nothing for what happens to others. If a million people - other than them - die due to a lack of regulations on food and medicine, and they save a few dollars on the deal that’s fine with them.
I also think the Golden Rule is a good rule of thumb. Would you want me to force you to give me anything I asked you to give me?
This is one of the places where the big government people fail on a moral level–they are perfectly OK with having the government use force to obtain money from people so the government can fund activities that the big government people feel would be good for society, whether or not such activities can only be performed by the government. After all, THEY know what is best for everyone–no need for people to sort things out amongst themselves; THEY will just force the government to do it and use government force to obtain the necessary funding.
Also, note that I am for limited government and am fine with most forms of health and safety regulation.
I disagree. For many years, the government supported the institution of slavery, and that was done with the consent of a majority of the governed. But it was not a legitimate function of the government, in that it ignored the basic liberties all men should enjoy, including those who were enslaved. The government has no legitimate role in reducing personal liberties in any undue or overbearing fashion; it has a legitimate role in protecting them.
But they weren’t. No government where everyone has an equal vote has ever instituted slavery. Your hypothetical is a red herring. I trust the majority to choose more wisely than a minority who claims superior knowledge of what constitutes a legitimate function of government.
Were there enough black people in the US to vote down slavery if they could vote? Also, FI, don’t forget that in the Private Sector Solutions thread you owned up to the fact that your theory of government makes protecting slavery a legitimate government function if that’s what a majority of people want.
Okay, if you don’t want to play along, fine. But in 1790 the black population of the U.S. was just under 20%. I don’t think it’s wild speculation that if all people had the vote, the white majority (women included) would have kept slavery intact.
It’s plausible, at least. To say, “but they didn’t” is not an answer to the question, “if they did, would that have been a legitimate function of the government, protecting slavery?” You answer seems to be that the tyrannical majority is incapable of installing an illegitimate circumstance, so we needn’t consider it. That’s clearly incorrect.
How about SSM then? Is it a legitimate function of the government to prohibit SSM?
I believe that the government should help people who cannot help themselves. So, for example, unemployment for people in-between jobs and disability payments for those who haven’t worked long enough to build up enough private funds (SSD and the like).
I believe that the government should help maintain law and order, protect people from bodily and property damage, theft, kidnappings, fraud, those sorts of thing, so police and fire departments.
I believe that the government should supply public education, and while I don’t have a problem with UHC I am very nervous about how it would be implemented and all of the unknown and unintended consequences that would occur.