Print

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

Republican

5 (6%)

Democrat

8 (9.5%)

Libertarian

11 (13.1%)

Undecided/Independent

38 (45.2%)

Other (Anarchist, Communist, Green, ect.)

22 (26.2%)

Total Members Voted: 84

[Flying Dice]

If any person manages to develop a way to completely eliminate government (yeah, I accidentally typed that first. Freudian slip?) corruption while still retaining a functioning system, a new Nobel prize should be created just for them, for "Winning Life". Get it? Because it isn't going to happen. Perhaps it is the semisuicidal cynic in me talking, but all forms of government are corrupt, just in different ways. The trick is in finding a type and balance of corruption, greed and general bastardism that doesn't impact your own life too badly, because there isn't a snowball's chance in the center of a supernova of having a lasting system that is entirely free of corruption.

[ChairmanPoo]

It's an inherent tendency in any big organization, not just goverment :/

[Bauglir]

It's an inherent tendency in any big organization, not just goverment :/

Point. I should've said that, instead, because it is what I meant more than what I said. >:/ (in a mirror)

[Montague]

If any person manages to develop a way to completely eliminate government (yeah, I accidentally typed that first. Freudian slip?) corruption while still retaining a functioning system, a new Nobel prize should be created just for them, for "Winning Life". Get it? Because it isn't going to happen. Perhaps it is the semisuicidal cynic in me talking, but all forms of government are corrupt, just in different ways. The trick is in finding a type and balance of corruption, greed and general bastardism that doesn't impact your own life too badly, because there isn't a snowball's chance in the center of a supernova of having a lasting system that is entirely free of corruption.

I think their would be very little corruption, waste or ineptitude in a government limited only to its very basic functions of maintaining rule of law. Police, military, courts, maybe environmental protection not much else. A government constitutionally defined by what it is permitted to do and not one defined by what it cannot do. Since the government isn't legally allowed to do anything besides wage war and arrest for serious crimes, there just would not be any reason to give any public official money or vice versa, since no official could possibly create or enforce any policy that could effect anything outside the limited scope of national defense and public security. People are awful and far from perfect, but if you take away their power they can't do much harm, you know?

Of course, that's just social-Darwinism and such a society would arguably be pretty backwards without public education and nothing but toll-roads everywhere. So I guess there is a price to pay to live in a society like this, since you have to trust a large government with far-reaching powers to do the right thing, since no other organization or group of organizations can.

[ECrownofFire]

It's an inherent tendency in any big organization, not just goverment :/

At least corporations actually balance their budgets

If any person manages to develop a way to completely eliminate government (yeah, I accidentally typed that first. Freudian slip?) corruption while still retaining a functioning system, a new Nobel prize should be created just for them, for "Winning Life". Get it? Because it isn't going to happen. Perhaps it is the semisuicidal cynic in me talking, but all forms of government are corrupt, just in different ways. The trick is in finding a type and balance of corruption, greed and general bastardism that doesn't impact your own life too badly, because there isn't a snowball's chance in the center of a supernova of having a lasting system that is entirely free of corruption.

I think their would be very little corruption, waste or ineptitude in a government limited only to its very basic functions of maintaining rule of law. Police, military, courts, maybe environmental protection not much else. A government constitutionally defined by what it is permitted to do and not one defined by what it cannot do. Since the government isn't legally allowed to do anything besides wage war and arrest for serious crimes, there just would not be any reason to give any public official money or vice versa, since no official could possibly create or enforce any policy that could effect anything outside the limited scope of national defense and public security. People are awful and far from perfect, but if you take away their power they can't do much harm, you know?

Of course, that's just social-Darwinism and such a society would arguably be pretty backwards without public education and nothing but toll-roads everywhere. So I guess there is a price to pay to live in a society like this, since you have to trust a large government with far-reaching powers to do the right thing, since no other organization or group of organizations can.

This is the basic idea of minarchism and more extreme libertarians.

For a less extreme version, just add in roads, education, and a few other basics and you have a pretty good system. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, so therefore zero power corrupts zero, hehe.

[Aqizzar]

For a less extreme version, just add in roads, education, and a few other basics and you have a pretty good system. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, so therefore zero power corrupts zero, hehe.

Or, in a worldview that recognizes that the government is not the only entity that can effect your life, zero government power outsources the corruption.

Hell, I don't even understand that "basic functions of maintaining rule of law" viewpoint as being a "small-government" platform.  You know what the EPA exists for?  Maintaining the rule of law, specifically, the laws passed on how you can interact with the environment.  What does the IRS do?  Maintains the rule of law in regard to paying legally levied taxes.  Every time I hear people railing against the EPA and such as an assault on liberty, I want to say, "hey, take it up with the laws, the EPA doesn't make them."

[ECrownofFire]

For a less extreme version, just add in roads, education, and a few other basics and you have a pretty good system. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, so therefore zero power corrupts zero, hehe.

Or, in a worldview that recognizes that the government is not the only entity that can effect your life, zero government power outsources the corruption.

Well obviously, but I'd rather that the corruption wasn't funded by taxes

[Montague]

Ok, instead of "rule of law" which has sort of an ambiguous meaning, it might be better to just say the government has a monopoly on violence, meaning there is not anarchy or unnumbered tiny warring factions, because the government is the only authority able to legitimately control the use of violence within whatever borders it is in and powerful enough to squash any competition.

A minarchist government would basically just exist to protect property and basic human rights.

So "Rule of Law" is say something Germany has that Afghanistan or Somalia doesn't have so much.

As for outsourcing corruption, only the government has the legitimate use of violence in its favor to maintain and fund it's existence. Other organizations have to stay popular and legitimate enough to exist because people can chose not to give them funding.

[Aqizzar]

As for outsourcing corruption, only the government has the legitimate use of violence in its favor to maintain and fund it's existence. Other organizations have to stay popular and legitimate enough to exist because people can chose not to give them funding.

I really don't mean to be insulting when I say I can only describe that as laughable.  I point again to the example of the EPA - any particular kind of pollution is only illegal to put in the atmosphere if the government makes it illegal and enforces that.  The laws on such that we have came into existence precisely because the theoretical market solution to pollution - customers going to a different company - never worked.  People choosing who to do business with didn't keep the Cuyahoga River from catching on fire, laws did, and you need agencies to enforce those laws, and then you need a way to pay for those agencies.

You follow that line of logic to everything else you think is worth protecting, and soon enough you've got a pretty large government.

[Strife26]

Negative Externalities need to be corrected by an outside force, as far as my recollection of AP Microecon goes.

[Montague]

Right. So when you have all these problems that only the threat of arrest can solve, you inexorably wind up with people demanding the government do something about it since they can't very well go over and fire-bomb the offending party.

Environmental protection is one of the caveats that only the government can really manage. Another idea might be an organization like a consumer advocacy/ labor union type thing with organized members, businesses, political parties agreeing to follow mandated prohibitions or boycotts applied to offending corporations or organizations by said entity. Of course, such an organization would be likely be astoundingly corrupt, it might be enough to keep corporate-type abuses to a minimum with just the threat of potential boycotts or strikes.

Anyways, rivers catching fire in a minarchist society would just be an insurance issue, since they'd be burning on private property, of course.

[Aqizzar]

Anyways, rivers catching fire in a minarchist society would just be an insurance issue, since they'd be burning on private property, of course.

That's actually shocking well-contained political philosophy there.  I can remember a time when I thought it was attractive; if you make the river someone's private property, they'd have an incentive to keep it clean, right?  Yeah, that'd work.

[Bauglir]

The only problem is that there are always people willing to cut corners for the short term buck, and when somebody cuts the wrong corners, the river is still on fucking fire. And downstream exists, but that's arguably river-specific (but there are also arguably analogues for just about everything else environmental).

[Montague]

Anyways, rivers catching fire in a minarchist society would just be an insurance issue, since they'd be burning on private property, of course.

That's actually shocking well-contained political philosophy there.  I can remember a time when I thought it was attractive; if you make the river someone's private property, they'd have an incentive to keep it clean, right?  Yeah, that'd work.

Radical, Utopian, crazy-people political philosophy is supposed to be inviolably logically consistent, its why its oddly convincing if you don't scrutinize the realities or underlying ideas of it too much. How do you suppose communism in its various interpretations managed to bring people together to predictably bring oppression and imploded economies to half the damn world?

Far as I know, industries and polluters really do not lose much money by pollution regulations in most cases. With the health hazards of pollution well known to damn near everyone alive these days it really is in their best interests not to take short-cuts if they want to avoid crippling litigation.

[GlyphGryph]

At least corporations actually balance their budgets

Heheh. Not all of them, as I'm sure you know. The difference is businesses can go out of business without destroying the country (or, you know, get bailed out by some outside party). You might be amazed at how well some companies succeed at their actual goal (making the owners money) for years and years without ever balancing their budgets.

Well obviously, but I'd rather that the corruption wasn't funded by taxes

You're funding it either way, to be honest - either in taxes (often represented by higher good prices and reduced pay) or by... well, having higher prices and reduced pay. Heh.

A minarchist government would basically just exist to protect property and basic human rights.

I think one of the major benefits of a situation like this would be the fact that their couldn't be any corporations, either, with this sort of limited government role system. That sort of government meddling in the private sector is exactly the sort of shit that leads to the problems.