OK, super. This thread is about why you think all those things are legitimate government functions. Thanks.
Come on. I (and everyone else) takes “the Golden Rule” to mean “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Anything else that Jew carpenter said don’t enter into it.
Your theory of government infantilizes the citizen by restricting their freedom of choice. Telling the voter “you are free to do anything you want, so long as it is not THIS or THAT” is no freedom at all.
True freedom is the freedom to make the wrong choice. I will say it again: I would sooner trust the majority to make the right decision that I do a minority who claims to have superior knowledge of what is legitimate and what is not.
This is a really lame attempt at a “gotcha.”
Fear Itself, tell us–how long have you felt so strongly about your “majority rules” theory of government? Any chance you came up with it last night when I asked you what your theory of government was in another thread?
And this is a non answer when you have nothing of substance to rebut with.
Zero chance.
I’m not in the mood to rebut an obviously fallacious “gotcha” attempt. Make a real argument and I’ll be all over it.
You go first. This OP was never started as a debate, as you obviously find that distasteful.
Good thing this is also the forum for witnessing.
I didn’t start this thread.
So it is. But your witnessing is indistiguishable from your “Private Sector” OP
What’s with the attitude? I thought voicing our opinions on what legitimate government functions are was the point of this thread.
I fail to see a distinction between the military and health care. Yes, people can pay for their own health care if they so choose, without government involvement, but then, people can also pay for their own armed security forces without government involvement. Unfortunately, though, in both of the cases without government involvement, it doesn’t work out very well.
To the topic of the OP, my view is that the purpose of government is to make sound investments which cannot be made, or cannot be made as efficiently, by non-governmental forces. The empirical evidence is that governments can provide health care more efficiently than non-governmental forces, so the government should provide health care. Likewise with the military, education, and many other investments. On the other hand, things that private industry can do as well or better than governments, there’s no need for governmental involvement.
Not really, but then I’m as selfish as anyone else. But if you were owed, then I should be forced. And I don’t think the libertarians have a moral right to enjoy all the benefits of living in a well governed society while trying to insist that everyone else but them pay for it.
My view is that a legitimate government function is any where government action creates a net benefit, taking into account both short term costs (usually tax, or loss of freedom) and long term costs (loss of productivity,economic growth etc).
My question for those that support very limited government is how do you justify no government involvement in education? It seems to me that a totally private education system would be one where a significant amount of people would receive very little education at all. It would be a system whereby your opportunity in life is largely dictated by what family you happened to be born into.
Could you please enumerate what you believe the benefits of living in a well-governed society are?
Not being killed by starving, desperate people for one; which is the likely end result of libertarianism given its head. Not being sickened or killed by contaminated food and medicine. Not being economically coerced into a job that cripples or kills me. Not starving to death. Basically, the exact opposite of libertarianism, which for all its noble sounding speeches about freedom is really just about anarchy for the wealthy, and tyranny for everyone else. Lords and serfs.
Then I suspect we may not be far off, actually; our difference might only be semantic.
I accept that our form of government has as an unavoidable flaw that laws I disagree with, laws I’d even consider “illegitimate” government powers, are installed by virtue of the majority rule. So long as a law doesn’t violate the Constitution (also a legislative act that was installed, and that remains, as a reflection of the will of the majority), then whatever law is passed by the majority, within the established rules, rules the day. So, I like the laws I like, and I bitch about the ones I don’t, and I pitch a loud bitch when I think a law is unconstitutional. But short of that line, we get what we get, and I accept and support that that’s our process.
I suspect you might word it slightly differently, that I’m contradicting myself by saying I’d accept an “illegitimate” government function, that anything I find acceptable is by my definition legitimate. For practical purposes, though, perhaps we’re not that far apart.
I’ll give another example: smoking bans. Bans in restaurants and bars seem to me overbearing restrictions of personal liberties. If someone wants to own a bar where smoking is permitted, if there are patrons who’d prefer that, if there are people willing to work there, who the @#$% is the government to say, no, you can’t? (I offer this to illustrate my perspective, not to start this particular debate.) But I accept that such bans are not unconstitutional, and a a result, majority rules and too bad for what I want. But I would still describe this as NOT a legitimate role of the government, that it falls within the boundaries of “ought to be none of the government’s concern.”
SSM seems to me to be a similar circumstance. I don’t see the constitutional prohibition against the states restricting marriage (same-sex or opposite-sex) in almost any way they’d like (I base that on the words of the Constitution; I acknowledge that SC justices have detected a constitutionally protected right to marriage in the vibrations of the Force). I think it’s an arena the government ought to mind its own business in–stay out of it, IOW, and let anybody marry whomever they’d like–but I accept the fact that our system permits such a restriction, even though I disagree with it.
Can you explain WHY you think that my ideal government would lead to this result?
You may want to re-read my first post in this thread before you answer (note–I’m OK with health and safety regulations).
I agree completely. That is my problem with RR’s contention regarding what is legitimate or not; it is all based on objectivist dogma. My theory of government is completely relative; free people deserve the government they want, so they can decide through the democratic process what is a legitimate function of government.
My theory of government is based simply on the idea that it is not a good thing to use force on people. That’s it. You apparently are not so bothered by using force on people as I am (which is OK, you are perfectly entitled to disagree with me, I just want you to recognize your position for what it is).
If you didn’t “force” people to pay taxes then there wouldn’t be enough money for federal, state, or local governments to do their jobs.
If you didn’t have law enforcement officers, safety inspectors, and the like then you’d have a much higher rate of crime and a much higher rate of businesses who’d overwork and underpay their employees while cutting corners with such things as safety (obviously I’m mostly thinking manufacturing and production, I’m sure positions such as yours wouldn’t be affected much).