Government's role in our society

[lastchance]

I postulate this: The government should provide services that it can do better than the private sector/individiuals, and not do anything that it can't do better than the private sector/individuals.

Assuming you agree with the above, the most important question is "what can our government do better than we can?"

Situations when the govrenment is better:
1. A program that needs to be standardized and must be consistent across the country. (police, justice system)
2. Central planning required. (roads)

I conclude that the government is most useful when a single, combined effort is more efficient than many individual efforts.

If you think the government should provide a service, you need to prove that a single, combined effort is better than many individual efforts. If you think the government should not provide a service, you need to prove that many individual efforts are better than a single, combined effort.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
I postulate this: The government should provide services that it can do better than the private sector/individiuals, and not do anything that it can't do better than the private sector/individuals.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds reasonable.

[ QUOTE ]
Assuming you agree with the above, the most important question is "what can our government do better than we can?"

Situations when the govrenment is better:
1. A program that needs to be standardized and must be consistent across the country. (police, justice system)
2. Central planning required. (roads)

[/ QUOTE ]

So central planning is better when central planning is required?

[ QUOTE ]
I conclude that the government is most useful when a single, combined effort is more efficient than many individual efforts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. Execpt that there's no such situation.

[ QUOTE ]
If you think the government should provide a service, you need to prove that a single, combined effort is better than many individual efforts. If you think the government should not provide a service, you need to prove that many individual efforts are better than a single, combined effort.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, so prove that roads, police and justice (your examples) "need" central government authority.

[lastchance]

Ok, sure.

Justice needs to be standardized and consistent. You cannot have a bunch of separate organizations with different rules and systems applying the law. It is perhaps the biggest example of where the government is needed because of a huge amount of consistency required.

The Police Force is the same. Plus, it is not exactly a service that you want people to have to buy, considering that they need to solve murders where people will not know who died, as well as breaking up gangs and drug rings where there may not be a lot of complaintants.

Roads require central planning. The government is central planning. Yeah, central planning is better when central planning is required. It would be near impossible to build interstate highways through the private sector considering the size, scope, and magnitude of such a project, and the amount of support required.

My examples are very clear cases where government will do a much better job than the private sector based on the idea that a single, combined effort is required to build them.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Justice needs to be standardized and consistent. You cannot have a bunch of separate organizations with different rules and systems applying the law. It is perhaps the biggest example of where the government is needed because of a huge amount of consistency required.

[/ QUOTE ]
Justice isn't consistent now. You think the laws are the same in every state, county, and/or city? Or that every judge will interpret the law in the exact same way? I agree that one of the few roles of gov't should be upholding the law, but your argument is not a good one in favor of that.

I reject pvn's system where justice is for sale to those who can afford it.

One service I'm a little torn on is the space program. Certainly it could be managed better than it is now, but I don't think any company has enough financial interest in sending stuff into space like satellites.

[lehighguy]

That's like totally what everyone is arguing about.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Justice needs to be standardized and consistent. You cannot have a bunch of separate organizations with different rules and systems applying the law. It is perhaps the biggest example of where the government is needed because of a huge amount of consistency required.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why does it need to be standardized? You just assert that it's required.

[ QUOTE ]
The Police Force is the same. Plus, it is not exactly a service that you want people to have to buy, considering that they need to solve murders where people will not know who died, as well as breaking up gangs and drug rings where there may not be a lot of complaintants.

[/ QUOTE ]

If there's no central state, there won't be any drug rings.

[ QUOTE ]
Roads require central planning. The government is central planning. Yeah, central planning is better when central planning is required. It would be near impossible to build interstate highways through the private sector considering the size, scope, and magnitude of such a project, and the amount of support required.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, here you're at least providing a concrete example of why central planning might be desirable. What magic does government have that makes it the only entity that can build roads? Government *can* do it more easily, since it can simply steal whatever land it wants to build a road on, but surely you're not suggesting that government is more efficient at building roads, or better at deciding where to build roads, are you?

[ QUOTE ]
My examples are very clear cases where government will do a much better job than the private sector based on the idea that a single, combined effort is required to build them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Clear? It's not clear at all from what you've provided.

[lastchance]

BCPVP's argument is better when it comes to justice and the police force. Having justice and the police force on sale to those who buy it sucks. Plus, to have a true justice system, everyone needs to buy into it and have a say as to the punishments and the crimes, and this is pure government.

If Murder should be outlawed, and I think we can safely say it should, someone needs to uphold it without getting paid money from an individual to investigate it, for it is in the public good. Also, there are many crimes, like extortion and slavery that take place without a complaintant. Without a public police force, these would never be investigated.

I am saying that without government, we would not have interstate highways right now. Government can do it more easily because it has the wide range of funds and support necessary to build a road, and will not extort people to drive on these roads.

When a single combined effort is more efficient than many individual efforts, government should be used.

Space exploration is a very interesting case. While you would rather have many individual efforts, space exploration costs a lot of money, and there's no profit at the end of it. Once the private sector becomes interested enough in space exploration, the government can start pulling out. But right now, one of the very few organizations that is interested enough and has the funds to support space exploration and research is the government.

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]

One service I'm a little torn on is the space program. Certainly it could be managed better than it is now, but I don't think any company has enough financial interest in sending stuff into space like satellites.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, not true. I actually work for a private company which makes satellites. (I'm an aerospace engineer.) Much, if not most, or our business is from other private companies, such as telecommunications firms. If fact, last week I helped support the launch and mission operations of a satelitte which I helped design for just such a company. It will carry HDTV signals to the U.S. We also design and build launch vehicles.

Personally, I'd like you to take each instance of government being better, individually and not as an "all the eggs in one basket" argument, and presenting your argument.

Me, I miss the 10th Amendment. That sucker was extremely well thought out.

[BCPVP]

I stand corrected.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
BCPVP's argument is better when it comes to justice and the police force. Having justice and the police force on sale to those who buy it sucks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would corrupt arbitrators have any credibility? Of course not. Only in a state-dominated monopoly justice system can corruption flourish.

[ QUOTE ]
Plus, to have a true justice system, everyone needs to buy into it and have a say as to the punishments and the crimes, and this is pure government.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't need government for this. Reasonable people can agree that unprovoked force and fraud are undesirable.

[ QUOTE ]
If Murder should be outlawed, and I think we can safely say it should, someone needs to uphold it without getting paid money from an individual to investigate it, for it is in the public good.

[/ QUOTE ]

What difference does it make where the money comes from as long as the crime is investigated and prosecuted?

There are more ways to fund private enforcement than just a pay-per-case basis.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, there are many crimes, like extortion and slavery that take place without a complaintant. Without a public police force, these would never be investigated.


[/ QUOTE ]

Really? Wow. A slave has no complaint? Come on. This doesn't require much imagination.

[ QUOTE ]
I am saying that without government, we would not have interstate highways right now.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. We'd have something better, more efficient, not paid for with stolen funds.

[ QUOTE ]
Government can do it more easily because it has the wide range of funds and support necessary to build a road, and will not extort people to drive on these roads.

[/ QUOTE ]

Government does it more easily because it uses force. Does that ease excuse the violence?

How would private road owners "extort people to drive"?

[ QUOTE ]
When a single combined effort is more efficient than many individual efforts, government should be used.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if it's coercive? It doesn't matter, because no scenario exists where centrally-planned effort will outperfrom market effort.

[ QUOTE ]
Space exploration is a very interesting case. While you would rather have many individual efforts, space exploration costs a lot of money, and there's no profit at the end of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

If there's no profit, why is it worth doing?

[ QUOTE ]
Once the private sector becomes interested enough in space exploration, the government can start pulling out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why should the government be in it before such point where private parties are interested?

[ QUOTE ]
But right now, one of the very few organizations that is interested enough and has the funds to support space exploration and research is the government.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, those funds are ill-gotten. If the benefit is enough to justify the theft of the funds, surely a private party could pursue it profitably without government intervention.

[lastchance]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
BCPVP's argument is better when it comes to justice and the police force. Having justice and the police force on sale to those who buy it sucks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would corrupt arbitrators have any credibility? Of course not. Only in a state-dominated monopoly justice system can corruption flourish.


[/ QUOTE ]
You're not saying that the private sector has no corruption, right?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Plus, to have a true justice system, everyone needs to buy into it and have a say as to the punishments and the crimes, and this is pure government.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't need government for this. Reasonable people can agree that unprovoked force and fraud are undesirable.


[/ QUOTE ]
Can reasonable people agree on the exact length of the sentence for these crimes? Can you make sure that everyone buys into and has a say in the justice system? Perhaps we should have a public forum to debate and decide what the crimes are, and their punishments. A decision making process for these laws would be very useful, huh?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If Murder should be outlawed, and I think we can safely say it should, someone needs to uphold it without getting paid money from an individual to investigate it, for it is in the public good.

[/ QUOTE ]

What difference does it make where the money comes from as long as the crime is investigated and prosecuted?

There are more ways to fund private enforcement than just a pay-per-case basis.


[/ QUOTE ]
Would you like to give an example?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, there are many crimes, like extortion and slavery that take place without a complaintant. Without a public police force, these would never be investigated.


[/ QUOTE ]

Really? Wow. A slave has no complaint? Come on. This doesn't require much imagination.


[/ QUOTE ]
Terror can be a great reason not to go to the police.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am saying that without government, we would not have interstate highways right now.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. We'd have something better, more efficient, not paid for with stolen funds.


[/ QUOTE ]
Hmm... Something better and more efficient? Would you mind explaining that part, or are you just objecting to taxes on a moral level?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Government can do it more easily because it has the wide range of funds and support necessary to build a road, and will not extort people to drive on these roads.

[/ QUOTE ]
Government does it more easily because it uses force. Does that ease excuse the violence?

How would private road owners "extort people to drive"?


[/ QUOTE ]
Supply and demand cost of using a road is far greater than the actual cost of building a road. Use your imagination, see what happens. I do not see how private roads in this day and age would work more effectively than public ones.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When a single combined effort is more efficient than many individual efforts, government should be used.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if it's coercive? It doesn't matter, because no scenario exists where centrally-planned effort will outperfrom market effort.


[/ QUOTE ]
Who cares if it's coercive? You have a choice between two crappy options, and one "forced" good one, that actually seems to work. I'll limit my options as to take the better one.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Space exploration is a very interesting case. While you would rather have many individual efforts, space exploration costs a lot of money, and there's no profit at the end of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

If there's no profit, why is it worth doing?


[/ QUOTE ]
Einstein didn't earn a lot of money for the general theory of relativity. There's no short-term profit in string theory. I don't think we should give up on those yet.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Once the private sector becomes interested enough in space exploration, the government can start pulling out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why should the government be in it before such point where private parties are interested?


[/ QUOTE ]
Because you never know when +EV occurs. Because there are huge benefits towards long-term research that no one can predict.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But right now, one of the very few organizations that is interested enough and has the funds to support space exploration and research is the government.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, those funds are ill-gotten. If the benefit is enough to justify the theft of the funds, surely a private party could pursue it profitably without government intervention.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't give a damn, and considering how +EV government is over anarchy (sudan), I really don't think it's a smart idea to care that you are force to pay for government services.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
You're not saying that the private sector has no corruption, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Read again. Private sector corruption in inevitably tied to government regulation.

[ QUOTE ]
Can reasonable people agree on the exact length of the sentence for these crimes?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do they need to? Why? We don't have that currently.

[ QUOTE ]
Can you make sure that everyone buys into and has a say in the justice system?

[/ QUOTE ]

A free market in justice would give everyone more buyin than any current system.

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps we should have a public forum to debate and decide what the crimes are, and their punishments. A decision making process for these laws would be very useful, huh?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's exactly what the free market is. A decision making process. There's just no single person making any decision.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What difference does it make where the money comes from as long as the crime is investigated and prosecuted?

There are more ways to fund private enforcement than just a pay-per-case basis.


[/ QUOTE ]
Would you like to give an example?

[/ QUOTE ]

Insurance.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Really? Wow. A slave has no complaint? Come on. This doesn't require much imagination.


[/ QUOTE ]
Terror can be a great reason not to go to the police.

[/ QUOTE ]

So how does a state-monopoly police force have any advantage here?

[ QUOTE ]
Hmm... Something better and more efficient? Would you mind explaining that part, or are you just objecting to taxes on a moral level?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I object to taxes on a moral level. Additionally, government spending is inherently inefficient. There really isn't any argument here.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Government does it more easily because it uses force. Does that ease excuse the violence?

How would private road owners "extort people to drive"?


[/ QUOTE ]
Supply and demand cost of using a road is far greater than the actual cost of building a road. Use your imagination, see what happens. I do not see how private roads in this day and age would work more effectively than public ones.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if the market doesn't value roads in their current form enough to justify their construction, can't we conclude that current roads are wasteful? Why should we build them if nobody wants to pay for them?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When a single combined effort is more efficient than many individual efforts, government should be used.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if it's coercive? It doesn't matter, because no scenario exists where centrally-planned effort will outperfrom market effort.


[/ QUOTE ]
Who cares if it's coercive? You have a choice between two crappy options, and one "forced" good one, that actually seems to work. I'll limit my options as to take the better one.

[/ QUOTE ]

But what if I don't agree that the "forced" option is "better"? You're oppressing me by forcing me to accept your opinion.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If there's no profit, why is it worth doing?


[/ QUOTE ]
Einstein didn't earn a lot of money for the general theory of relativity. There's no short-term profit in string theory. I don't think we should give up on those yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not answering the question.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Once the private sector becomes interested enough in space exploration, the government can start pulling out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why should the government be in it before such point where private parties are interested?


[/ QUOTE ]
Because you never know when +EV occurs. Because there are huge benefits towards long-term research that no one can predict.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. But the private sector is demonstrably better at conducting pure research than government-directed efforts.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't give a damn, and considering how +EV government is over anarchy (sudan), I really don't think it's a smart idea to care that you are force to pay for government services.

[/ QUOTE ]

The situation in the Sudan (I assume you're referring to Darfur) is not anarchy. It's a direct result of government.

[lastchance]

Insurance is an example of how a privately owned police force would work, but would a police force running on insurance funds investigate crimes where the dead body is not found, where there are no complaintants, where the victims of a crime do not have the money to buy insurance, as so often happens. What about white collar crime, when you don't know who's getting screwed directly?

Well, you don't need complete agreement about the crimes and punishments, but you do need to know where the justice system is, who decides the punishment for particular crimes, how extradition will work, where the territorial boundaries are, and who gets brought in for what crimes.

It'd be one hell of a hassle.

A state monopoly police force, in general, will investigate crimes where the victims are unknown, white collar crime with no direct victims, and general extortion where the victims are too afraid to come up with. Making sure a private force does that will be harder due to very little direct incentive to make sure these crimes are found out.

Ok, you object to taxes on a moral level. I don't really care about that debate.

Roads are publicly owned. If they were privately owned, a company could earn a ton of money by simply creating toll booths, making sure you paid $30 a hour or so, just to use roads. Controlling transportation would be huge profit for any company that does that. But the cost of a building a road is much less than that. With publicly owned roads, we can artificially keep the cost down by using a NPO to organize and pay for the construction of roads.

If Government is more effective than a private organization, and by more effective, I mean, an extra $10-20k per person in personal wealth, would you agree that government deserves to exist, or would you still argue against government due to it's oppression and theft?

I agree government research can be pretty terrible in a lot of places. But those things do need funding, and if NPO funding isn't enough, then it is greatly to our benefit to have the government tax people to make sure that research goes through.