|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Dec 30, 2009 7:57:42 GMT
Social Evolution: The Purpose Of GovernmentWhile the many types of covernments available are often discussed, it is quite rare for anyone for talk about why they exist in the first place. As with so much else, anything as all-pervasive as government is simply accepted as 'the way things are' and thus left unquestioned. Which is a shame, as there are an awful lot of governments that do not seem to have the faintest idea of what a government is or what it is supposed to do. This ignorance often leads to disaster, as it is the social equivalent of using a screwdriver as a chisel. You can kind of do the job, in a way, but the result will be pretty messy and damage both the object chiselled and the screwdriver. If a society can best be described as a body, then government is the skeleton. It gives form to the creature, supports and strengthens it and gives it an underlying structure it would otherwise lack. As the society grows, the government grows in harmony with it - or at least it should! A government that is too small (Not usually the problem, given the propensity of human systems to expand) then it is too frail to support the body and the whole society collapses. If it is too large (Frequently a problem) it creates pain and immobility throughout the society, crushing or crowding out other systems. Thus, the size of a government and its attendent bureaucracy needs to be kept adequate for its function, but no more and no less. This is not so fine an art as it sounds, fortunately. Just as humans have many different sizes of functional bone structure, so are there many different sizes of functional government. Thus, government is a framework; a facilitator. It's purpose is to create the conditions in which the society may thrive. To that end it creates laws as and where necessary to prevent civil strife, maintains an army to prevent foreign invasion and regulates the economy in such a way that the needs of workers and merchants alike are met in a fair and balanced fashion. Trade being the blood that gives life to the body social, establishing and maintaining a strong economy is vital to good government. Possibly the worst mistake that any government can make (And this was the ultimate downfall of Communism) is the assumption that the government itself is more important than the society it underpins. This mistake leads to an enormous growth in the size of governmental structures, to a completely unsustainable extent. It cannot be stated firmly enough: governments do not generate revenue. Only the private sector can do that. The more money that is spent by government, the less money rests in the hands of the people and thus the slower the blood of trade moves through the body social. Too many bad laws that restrict, damage or destroy trade will harm the society. Too great a burden of taxation will harm the society. These are things that should be obvious, but to many governments they are not. It is not the purpose of government to tell its citizens what to think or feel. Indeed, that being impossible, the only thing a government can gain from attempting to do so is to alienate and undermine the society it is supposed to be supporting - or, perhaps worse, to split it into factions and create infighting. The hearts and minds of the people are the province of religion, not government. People may on rare occasions believe in an exceptional leader, but they do not and never have believed in governments. And only belief grants the power to change hearts and minds (No, logic does not work to counter belief and it never has. This is what makes belief such a powerful force. And I don't just mean belief in religion, here!). A good government serves its people by promoting harmony and unity through fair, balanced laws and by making sure it creates new laws only as and when needed - in other words by proper regulation. A bad government promotes disharmony and disunity through trying to push its own agenda onto a people who do not truly want it (Thus creating resentment) and by making laws at the drop of a hat just because it can. Good government is supportive of the body social; bad government is repressive. As a final note, do not look at what a government says if you wish to work out if it is good or bad: look at the results of its actions. As with any and all human-created social structures and ideologies, the true purpose of the thing lies not in its words, but in the result of its deeds. *** I was going to do law. Then I figured I should probably do this one, first! 
|
|
|
|
Post by Ubereil on Dec 30, 2009 11:04:25 GMT
Possibly the worst mistake that any government can make (And this was the ultimate downfall of Communism) is the assumption that the government itself is more important than the society it underpins. I agree - to an extent. Partly because communism when it works the way it's designed to doesn't include a goverment (it's basically anarchy). And partly because I think the problem is the assumption that the society the goverment underprints is more important than the pepole living in said society. This a very common mistake made by politicians (and pepole) who tend to get too caught up with ideology to consider what's acually good for pepole. Most (so called) communist regimes (like the Sovjet and China) are rather extreme/clear examples of this. Fashist regimes is another good example. I also think libertarian (and, even more so, anarchist) societies also goes in this region, but it's hard to prove since I don't think libertarianism(/anarchism) has ever been preformed in practise. This mistake leads to an enormous growth in the size of governmental structures, to a completely unsustainable extent. ...and a good counter example of this is libertarianism. Since libertarianism builds on having minimal goverment. But usually that's a correct assumption. It cannot be stated firmly enough: governments do not generate revenue. Only the private sector can do that. The more money that is spent by government, the less money rests in the hands of the people and thus the slower the blood of trade moves through the body social. Too many bad laws that restrict, damage or destroy trade will harm the society. Too great a burden of taxation will harm the society. These are things that should be obvious, but to many governments they are not. Ah, bow to the mighty Mammon! I'm not sure you're implying what you're acually implying, but for the time being I'm going to assume you do. What I think you are implying is that as little as possible should be handled by the goverment because the private sector does a better job at it. I disagree with that notion, at least not when it's stated as a general rule. What is the point of revenue? It's not an end in itself to create revenue, just like nothing is an end in itself. The point of revenue is to bring us items and services. It gives us houses, food on our table, clothes and entertainment in our spare time. The reason we have our current revenue system is because producing things and getting payed for it makes it easier for us to get these things compared to having to make the things ourselves. The goverment could produce these things for us as well. The issue is which system does the best job at it. In most cases I'd acually say revenue - as long as the goverment sets up the vital restrictions. Because revenue, despite the real point of it, tends to become an end in itself: companies who start to mazimise their own profit at the expence of the well-being of the pepole around them. A very good example is abortion (let's ignore the moral complications of it for a moment. If we are going to do it, then there are at least good ways and bad ways to do it). When the private sector takes care of abortion they are going to serve you with the goal for you to have an abortion. Therefore they will downplay (or flat out don't mention) the risk of mental problems following an abortion, because if they don't you might not want to have one. Risk of physical complications will also be downplayed. They gain more money if you have a surgical abortion, so even if you can have a medical abortion they won't tell you about it even if a medical abortion is a lot more healthy for you, both physically and mentally. In a lot of cases these kinds of problems aren't that much of an issue. But in some cases it is. In these cases the goverment does a better job than revenue to ensure that the members of society gets good goods/services. It is, of course, important to find the right balance of these two things. Private ownership on principal grounds is bad. But what a lot of leftists seem to forget is that goverment ownership on principal grounds is just as bad. (One thing about goverment ownership is that it doesn't necesarily have to cost tax money either. If the fees/prizes are set correctly then it will break even, thus not costing any tax money. In some cases (like with roads) this isn't possible though. But in these cases it's important to consider how much tax money is spent on these services. If it's less tax money than pepole would have to pay if it was bought for by private revenue then we still earn on paying for it through taxes.) It is not the purpose of government to tell its citizens what to think or feel. Indeed, that being impossible, the only thing a government can gain from attempting to do so is to alienate and undermine the society it is supposed to be supporting - or, perhaps worse, to split it into factions and create infighting. The hearts and minds of the people are the province of religion, not government. People may on rare occasions believe in an exceptional leader, but they do not and never have believed in governments. And only belief grants the power to change hearts and minds (No, logic does not work to counter belief and it never has. This is what makes belief such a powerful force. And I don't just mean belief in religion, here!). This is one common (but not universal) mistake made by those regimes mentioned above (communism, fashism etc). Citizens feelings/thoughts are being repressed for the good of society. I'm not sure I agree that this is the realm of religion, but apart from that I agree. As a final note, do not look at what a government says if you wish to work out if it is good or bad: look at the results of its actions. As with any and all human-created social structures and ideologies, the true purpose of the thing lies not in its words, but in the result of its deeds. Judging anyone sorely on the consequences of their deeds isn't a very accurate standard, I believe. We can't fortell what our actions will do, so if they do unexpected things it's not entirely accurate to put all the blame on us. Now, if a policy does something then we can't assume that this is what the policy makers wanted to achieve. We can't even look at a policy and guess what it will do and assume this is what the policy makers wants to achieve. In other words, figuring out the true purpouse behind a policy is hard at best, impossible at worst. If a goverment keeps doing things with poor results though, then it's at least a sign that they're not fit to run the country. We don't need to know how pure their intentions are to know that what they do is bad for the country. Übereil |
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Dec 30, 2009 11:22:19 GMT
Ube...
I think you missed this bit: "and regulates the economy in such a way that the needs of workers and merchants alike are met in a fair and balanced fashion. "
In other words, good govt is about striking a good balance so that no-one is exploited unduly. Some things have to be regulated by govt for that reason. So i wasn't implying what you thought I was.
What I absolutely state is that govts do not generate wealth. And they don't.
***
As for judging by consequences: it's a VERY accurate standard. What can you tell, when someone does something that has a certain effect, then, seeing that effect, continues to do it exactly as before? Surely that the end result is the one intended?
If the result is not what was intended, would they not move to correct the error?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ubereil on Dec 30, 2009 12:03:36 GMT
Define what you mean when you say the goverment doesn't generate wealth, please. For reference sake, doing so will make the rest of the discussion easier for both of us. ********* That's a very simple analysis of a complex problem: why humans do what they do. The most important hidden factor in politics is getting/staying in power. It's easier to stay in power by pretending a problem you created isn't really a problem, because admitting it is telling pepole you're a problem maker. Doesn't mean that's your only priority, just that it's a priority. Doesn't mean they wanted what they achieved either (especially not when they started it), just that they want to be thrown out even more. Since pretty much everyone in general and politicians in particular does it it's not something to bother too much with (I mean, how do we fight self preservation?). You could select someone else, but that someone will most likely do it too. I still think that if they keep doing something with poor consequences (especially repeated crimes of the same kind) then the best we can assume is that they're incompetent. ************ On a slightly different note I'm starting to think we ought to try and get a sense of duty back into pepole. I'm sure some pepole feel it, but there are far too many pepole (especially politicians) who don't really seem to care for other pepole. A lot of pepole who do jobs that's based on helping others do so with the goal of self realization rather than the goal of helping others. The effect is that they make a lot of stupid mistakes because they don't really care. Übereil |
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Dec 30, 2009 12:42:23 GMT
OK. If you invent a new process for, say, making beer you are creating something that people will want. You sell it both at home and abroad and your business takes off because you make good beer. You employ several people, because you have a good business and need more workers than just yourself because of demand.
Look where the money comes in and goes to:
You pay rent on your factory.
You pay tax
You pay your workers
You pay a bottle maker and a label maker
You pay a shipper and a haulage firm to take your beer where it is wanted
You lose money to the time spent filling in govt paperwork
You make money from domestic sales, which also helps keep shops operating.
You make money from foreign sales, which brings more money into the country.
The government takes your taxes and the taxes of your workers and uses that money for services: health, education, road maintenance, etc.
In other words, the govt provides infrastructure to assist you in the making of money, but makes none itself.
***
As for the 'judge by deeds' thing, a politician who will not correct a mistake because he might lose power if he admits to it is surely revealing his actual reasons, thereby, isn't he? That he doesn't care at all about people, only about re-election. Power for himself.
I rest my case.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ubereil on Dec 30, 2009 13:44:11 GMT
In other words, the govt provides infrastructure to assist you in the making of money, but makes none itself. Besides, the private sector would make less money if it would have to also make roads, educate pepole etc. Something I feel is often overlooked when it comes to goverment involvement. ************ Caring more about your own power than about pepole isn't the same as not caring about pepole at all. Just like being pro-life doesn't automatically mean you don't care about the mother, and being pro-choice automatically mean you don't care about the fetus. Übereil |
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Dec 30, 2009 14:00:36 GMT
A strict govt monopoly amounts to price fixing and is very bad for trade. You'll notice that the govt shops survive by banning competitors outright? Very Soviet. Also ineffective compared to private enterprise because the govt is less motivated to succeed.
***
Caring about your own power more than the active harm you are doing to people would be taking things a little too far though, wouldn't you say? I'd say that was clear proof of not caring about people enough.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ubereil on Dec 30, 2009 16:32:34 GMT
Be that as it may be, but Systembolaget does make a lot of money. Maybe not as much as a private company would, but that's because the sole interest of Systembolaget isn't to sell alcohol, it's to encourage responsible alcohol consumption. So they don't want to sell too much alcohol. Apart from that... A strict govt monopoly amounts to price fixing and is very bad for trade. Ah, bow to the mighty Mammon! Let's take Apoteket. If pepole get cheap meds and a knowledgeable personel (which Apoteket provides) then what's the point of trade? And then what's the problem with price fixing? You'll notice that the govt shops survive by banning competitors outright? Not necesarily. I believe Apoteket would* survive even though the private sector's competing with it. *And will, since the current govt has abolished the monopoly on medication. Which I don't feel is necesarily a bad idea, as long as the quality checks of the new companies getting into the buisness are throughout enough. I heard they wore shoes in the Soviet Union back in the days. Does that mean we have to stop wearing them? Also ineffective compared to private enterprise because the govt is less motivated to succeed. They can also provide very cheap goods since they're not forced to make a profit though. So there are advantages and disadvantages. Mostly disadvantages, I have to agree, which is why the private sector is the best option in most cases. In some cases it's a good idea though. Majorly services where price is a key factor, like medicine (everyone will probably want medicines). Art (like TV) is another good idea, since not having to worry if your product sells or not can make you more keen on taking risks. Caring about your own power more than the active harm you are doing to people would be taking things a little too far though, wouldn't you say? I'd say that was clear proof of not caring about people enough. Like I said, everbody does that. Especially politicians. You overestimate these pepole's ability to see clearly through the filter of self interest and pride (admitting to yourself you were wrong takes strength as well). It takes more than being showed that they're wrong for these pepole to realize they were wrong. Either way, don't vote for them. I suppose we can at least agree on that, right? Übereil |
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Dec 30, 2009 16:47:27 GMT
Why do you think Sweden ended that state monopoly, Ube? Proof, surely, that it was not working. Don't forget that preventing competition also prevents employment. That's not a good thing at all.
A govt monopoly is a good thing for essential services like electricity & gas, which people actually require in order to survive in the modern world, because a govt monopoly can keep prices down on things that people cannot live without. It's a really bad idea on everything else, because it costs jobs.
'The Mighty Mammon' has little to do with anything. The reason I mentioned the Soviet system is because the standard of living for the average Soviet citizen was terrible compared to that of the West - mainly because of the way the Soviets ran their economy.
When people are allowed to make money, they do all kinds of useful things, such as employing other people, paying lots of taxes and using private services that lift the burden on the state. When they are not allowed to make money, they work less hard, produce less and employ no-one.
***
We can certainly agree on not voting for anyone who puts their own political interests ahead of the people they are supposed to serve, yes. All too frequently that's a 'least worst' option, mind, but still...
|
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Dec 30, 2009 16:59:45 GMT
a govt monopoly can keep prices down on things that people cannot live without
That's news to me - does that work anywhere?
Actually, since Big G is not into profit, but thrives to cover cost, there is little incentive to control, far less cut, cost.
While this may be a good thing when Big G is paying its workers minimum pay (should it have established one), its self administration usually becomes very 'governmental', meaning ardent followers of Parkinson's Laws.
And by the good saying 'who controls the controllers - or in this instance maybe also the comptrollers', the public control administration outside the company grows proportionally, but is not counted therein.
Edit: One public institution in Germany came into my mind which DOES make profits, and feeds the federal budget with them (and actually are counted in for future budgets) - The Bundesbank (the German Federal Bank), which has the monopoly on our money (meaning currency).
One proviso though - the Bundesbank statute is peculiar in that it substantially limits the federal government executive's direction in its structure. This was one of the success factors for the stability of the German Mark.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Dec 30, 2009 17:09:46 GMT
Well, can was the operative word, there, really... ;D
There's no reason why anything MUST turn to dreck, once govt gets involved. It does seem to happen that way rather a lot, granted, but still...
|
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Dec 30, 2009 17:14:44 GMT
but that's because the sole interest of Systembolaget isn't to sell alcohol, it's to encourage responsible alcohol consumption.I'd believe that, if and when they start registering individual consumption. Not that lt'll work, but at least it would show the effort. Otherwise it basically is a convenient central tax collection. After all, they're not manufacturing any alcoholic beverages, right? Just selling off everybody's brew to anybody who is legally entitled? {Which means their cost calculation is: cost of manufacture (=purchase price) + administrative overhead + tax +?profit? <- or are they making a profit out of the overhead cost?  }
|
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Dec 30, 2009 17:30:45 GMT
There's no reason why anything MUST turn to dreck, once govt gets involved.
It does make me nervous seeing an English speaker use a German word in this context - or is it a coincidence and it comes from somewhere else?
If not - how come it became colloquial in English?
|
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Dec 30, 2009 17:43:05 GMT
It's colloquial in English for the same reason we pick up a ton of other words: we like them and they express a sentiment we don't exactly have. we stole zeitgeist from you, too! I didn't even know dreck was originally German. Calling something 'a pile of dreck' to mean 'utter rubbish' has been quite common for as long as I can recall. |
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Dec 30, 2009 17:49:39 GMT
'Dreck' is simply 'dirt' in German But yes - we also use it as a curse at times!  |
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Dec 30, 2009 18:21:15 GMT
That's a shame. It sounded so much more interesting before I knew what it meant! ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Ubereil on Dec 30, 2009 18:46:17 GMT
Why do you think Sweden ended that state monopoly, Ube? Proof, surely, that it was not working. Acually, the righties ended it this year for ideological reasons. Don't forget that preventing competition also prevents employment. That's not a good thing at all. You're saying state owned buissnesses don't employ pepole? A govt monopoly is a good thing for essential services like electricity & gas, which people actually require in order to survive in the modern world, because a govt monopoly can keep prices down on things that people cannot live without. And meds isn't essential to your survival? Funny you'd mention electricity by the way, since Vattenfall is a state owned company who's doing really well even though they don't have a monopoly... You keep hearing about how they're forced to raise their prices and then making huge profits too... Come to think of it, state owned buissnesses doesn't have to be monopolies to work (though in some cases it's a bad idea to open it up to competition, like with alcohol). Having to compete with private companies is a pretty good way to reduce some of the inherent problems goverment run companies tend to have (the ones Glance mentioned). Thinking a little more, it was Elliot who claimed goverment run companies requires monopoly, not me. but that's because the sole interest of Systembolaget isn't to sell alcohol, it's to encourage responsible alcohol consumption.I'd believe that, if and when they start registering individual consumption. 1: Nobody would accept that. Everyone would cry "infringement of personal integrity" and the politicians behind the bill would get lynched. 2: In Finland they abolished their state monopoly on liquor. A few years of all kinds of social tumoil they reinstalled it saying abolishing was the worst thing they've ever done. Systembolaget might not do an awfully good job at pomoting responsible alcohol consumption, but without them hell would break loose. Übereil |
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Dec 30, 2009 20:47:46 GMT
Ube...
I don't think anyone said that state run businesses REQUIRE monopolies. I certainly didn't.
Of course state run businesses employ people, but if all competition is banned then there is ALSO a ban on employing people for the businesses that would exist if they were not banned. A ban on business is a ban on employment.
Medical care is one of those things that you may or may not need. Every single person in any nation will not need it every day of their lives. Things like electricity, they will. It would also be impossible to create a state monopoly on pharmaceutical goods because so many of them are created internationally. You'd just get embargoed and your health service would suffer accordingly.
I fail to see how. Sweden is the only nation with that kind of restriction and I haven't exactly heard of alcohol causing a breakdown of civilisation anywhere else, yet...
|
|
|
|
Post by Terrordar on Dec 30, 2009 21:04:29 GMT
Excuse me Elliot?
Study before you say such ignorance.
Canada is a nation in which the government is the main distributor of Liquor in most of the country.
The people who give liquor out at liquor stores are government employees.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ubereil on Dec 30, 2009 21:09:48 GMT
I don't think anyone said that state run businesses REQUIRE monopolies. I certainly didn't. No, you just said goverment buissness survives by banning competition. Of course state run businesses employ people, but if all competition is banned then there is ALSO a ban on employing people for the businesses that would exist if they were not banned. A ban on business is a ban on employment. Assuming the goverment isn't already covering the entire market in the given area. If it is then lifting the monopoly will eventually lead to either the competition going away or the goverment being forced to fire pepole. That others aren't allowed to employ pepole for that purpouse doesn't automatically mean more pepole will be hired if the monopoly is lifted. If our alcohol monopoly is lifted then the alcohol buissness will be taken over by the super markets. And they won't hire more pepole to handle that. Medical care is one of those things that you may or may not need. Every single person in any nation will not need it every day of their lives. Things like electricity, they will. It would also be impossible to create a state monopoly on pharmaceutical goods because so many of them are created internationally. You'd just get embargoed and your health service would suffer accordingly. ...it IS working in Sweden... I fail to see how. Sweden is the only nation with that kind of restriction and I haven't exactly heard of alcohol causing a breakdown of civilisation anywhere else, yet... Even though I just told you that happened when Finland abolished their monopoly? Which is now re-established, which I also told you, by the way. Übereil |
|
.com
}
