Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The problem with a monopoly of force in any field is that it can't be stopped, even by the people inside of it, if something goes wrong.

I think Strife is referring to the monopoly of violence, dude. The precise thing that any state requires to even function as a proper state.

The words "on the world stage" leads me to think otherwise.

[GlyphGryph]

He said on the WORLD stage though - I'm not sure, but I think he meant there should be one country with a monopoly of violence on a worldwide level.

[MonkeyHead]

I hope thats not what he meant...

[Josephus]

He said on the WORLD stage though - I'm not sure, but I think he meant there should be one country with a monopoly of violence on a worldwide level.

Well, that would certainly keep things under control.

The thing is, I'm pretty sure the monopoly of violence is pretty much impossible to achieve on a world stage, primarily because it posits a single global governing body.

[Sheb]

Well, you can have something similar if you have a powerful enough hegemon, as the United States almost were in the late 90's/early 00'.

[Strife26]

Maybe parity of force'd be a better word. I don't think that a world where America isn't the foremost military power'd be all that good of an idea.

[Sheb]

From an american point of view maybe, but as an outsider (and one that is dependent on the US Army for part of its security), I'd prefer having someone to keep the US in check. Frankly, you guys already decided you have the right to bomb anyone that look like a supporter of Al-Qaeda anywhere in the (third) world. You invaded Irak for no real good reasons. You're dangerous for God's sake.

[MonkeyHead]

Yea, who police's the world police?

Now, if you had a track record of using your level might in a responsible way, the rest of the world probably wouldnt mind.

[Mrhappyface]

The constitution says that the federal government is required to completely cover two things: Foreign affairs and defense. Now it would be pretty terrible if infrastructure, agriculture, health, education and other departments would go poof, but a huge government is not necessarily an efficient one.

[GlyphGryph]

But private business is not necessarily any more efficient.

[MonkeyHead]

There are lessons to be learnt from other nations that have privatized bodies that were previously under governmental control. Some good, some bad. IMHO, mainly bad. Should the US end up going down the "smaller Government" route, it would do well to learn from the lessons of others as opposed to arrogantly thinking things will go well for them just because.

[Frumple]

The constitution says that the federal government is required to completely cover two things: Foreign affairs and defense. Now it would be pretty terrible if infrastructure, agriculture, health, education and other departments would go poof, but a huge government is not necessarily an efficient one.

No sized government is necessarily an efficient one. The question wasn't if larger gov is less efficient, but whether why small gov is supposed to be moreso. Pretty sure that's what Sheb was asking, anyway, and gryph and co. more or less answered.

The only necessarily efficient government is an efficient government

The axiom being assumed is that a smaller (whatever that means, o'course -- gryph's explanation is an interesting way to look at it) government would have an easier time of being efficient. Whether that's actually true, well...

[Strife26]

It certainly scales that large bureaucracies are almost always pretty bad in the efficiency categories, just from the amount of friction you get in trying to communicate.

I'd very strongly argue that there's many more efficient private enterprises compared to efficient governments.

[GlyphGryph]

I'd strongly argue that the private enterprises that operate on the level governments do are not really all that much more efficient.

(And that some governments are significantly more efficient than others)

[Sheb]

Also, it depends how you measure efficiency. Sure, there may be less "waste" in private companies in the form of generous pension and insurance plan, but you have other costs that government solutions don't have to shoulder, like advertisement or dividend to shareholders.