The Role of Government
- Thread starter Danoff
- 83 comments
- 1,906 views
Danoff
Premium
- 34,106
- Mile High City
I think this is your real message. I was put off by the fact that you were recommending anarchy, but I see what you're trying to say now. So if I'm getting you straight, government should participate in the following:
Defense
Contract Enforcement
Protection of Fundamental Human Rights (life, property, vote?, etc..)
But what about research? Space Exploration? Should government be invovled in that? Traffic? Road Maintenance? Public Schools? Are these things you can support government invovlement with?
Brett
Premium
- 8,632
- Oklahoma
I don't recommend anarchy at all; I just believe the government should regulate and license as few things as possible.
Research should be done by scientists, not by the government. But considering the government likes to spend money on pointless things, I see no point in why they cannot provide money to help with the research. Space exploration should be basically the same as research, but with alittle more government involvement. Both of these would deal with the national government. Traffic would be more of a local issue and the city should be the one to deal with it and how to relieve the city of some of it. Road maintenance would be either a state or local thing. Public schools should all be a state thing and not a national thing whatsoever; from saying that, the state should only have certain requirements and then the district does as they see fit.
I guess what I am getting at is the national government and like I've said before, government should only be involved in as few things as possible. I don't know if what I've said makes a whole lot of sense though. Tell me what you think.
- 19,311
- Inland Empire SoCal
- SOLID_LIFTERS
The problem though is the Government has become much bigger, and more intrusive to our daily lives. Particularly, over the past 20 years. Do you think it's odd that Republicans say "Less Government," but they have been mostly in charge of these past 20 years? Of course, they make new laws that seem to make it appear they have the right to invade our lives, but they're still intrusive.
Brett
Premium
- 8,632
- Oklahoma
Well instead of making the government bigger from here on out, they need to stop making it bigger and make an effort to downsize it. All we really need is the Democrats to make all their programs and make the government that much bigger. But then again, when Newt Gingrinch(sp?)(and Republican) tried to downsize the government, the people seemed to get upset. Well it seems to me that the people are really the biggest problem is what government should do and what they shouldn't do and can't seem to make up their mind on what they really want government to do. Did any of that make any sense at all???
- 10,832
Just exactly? How about a brief synopsis? I don't have time to write volumes for you, and that's what it'd take.
The institution, over time, comes to be seen as something independent of it's creators, even more powerful than it's creators. The history of the institution becomes dogmatized. The critical force from which the institution is born is forgotten. It is seen as permanent. This is how socialists view government; bigger, better, more important than the individual.
The institution, over time, comes to be seen as something independent of it's creators, even more powerful than it's creators. The history of the institution becomes dogmatized. The critical force from which the institution is born is forgotten. It is seen as permanent. This is how socialists view government; bigger, better, more important than the individual.
- 1,188
"Governments are triumphant monopolies of murder, robbery, swindling and all that is atrocious and detestable. Ever since the beginning, they have forced mankind to kill or prepare and hold themselves in readiness to kill each other by the thousands and even millions at a time, and by the cruelest and most destructive means that spite can devise." -- Calvin Blanchard (1865) 
Exo-Modemnator
(Banned)
- 64
To "manage the country, make use of the resources that country generates and steal all your money".
I reckon they should keep to stealing money and ****ing up countries...
Because it suits them, and as they run the country, no one can tell them to shove it up their ass. And if they do, they get shipped out to New Zealand or Uraguay or somewhere and buried alive.
Running countries. They should stick to stealing, they're better at it.
Because the country will operate a lot better with no governing body. For starters we'll be able to keep hold of all our resources. Let's not even START delving into jail terms for robbers compared to those of murderers...
Danoff
Premium
- 34,106
- Mile High City
This has nothing to do with the beleif that truth is beyond the individual. You're talking about complacency and resistance to change.... devotion to the system.
Here's the scenario you laid out....
In the beginning, people found that 2+2=4
They then instituted 2+2=4 and lots of people were told about it. They tried it out and saw that it was true and worked well.
Over time the message faded and soon 2+2=5. Hearing this and liking the results, some people set out to prove that 2+2=5. They managed to come up with some weak arguments that that was the case. Before long there was a devoted following of people who believed that 2+2=5. They held it as truth, beyond the individual, absolute, just as people held 2+2=4 to be truth.
Just because they believe that something false is an absolute truth is not proof that absolute truth does not exist.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,106
- Mile High City
Anarchy would break out if there were no governing body. No contracts would be enforcible. No property would be safe. Companies could not exist. The result is a complete collapse of any civil economic system and the halt of progress.
Another result is the lack of defense against a hostile nation. This country with no government of yours would collapse in almost no time at all. Either a military might from within would rise up and take control - thereby installing a dictatorship and erasing anarchy. Or a hostile country would take over and erase the anarchy. Either way your proposal would not survive.
It simply can't be done the way you suggest.
Exo-Modemnator
(Banned)
- 64
Yeah well... Anything is better than a government that steals your money and resources, and has one law unto themselves and another for the general public.
- 1,188
Actually people can be predicted mathematically.. it's called Game Theory. Two very very very good books on it are: A Politcal Theory Primer by Peter C. Ordeshook and Nested Games by George Tsebelis. I own both and they are very interesting. It's a lot of stuff that can be applied everyday.
- 1,188
Here is a good example http://pass.maths.org.uk/issue13/features/brams/
Companies use expiramental economics and game theory all the time, it is a good tool to predict economic behavior and investor trends.
My personal uses of game theory have been to predict the investment trends of large investment firms, namely Charles Schwab.
The basic example of game theory and its potential use is the "prisoners' dillema" (you probably have heard of that.. maybe not).
You can search for this and see how game theory is performed also if necessary i can post a .gif of some real game theory that i have used.
Companies use expiramental economics and game theory all the time, it is a good tool to predict economic behavior and investor trends.
My personal uses of game theory have been to predict the investment trends of large investment firms, namely Charles Schwab.
The basic example of game theory and its potential use is the "prisoners' dillema" (you probably have heard of that.. maybe not).
You can search for this and see how game theory is performed also if necessary i can post a .gif of some real game theory that i have used.
Similar threads
