Government

[darius]

"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." Fredric Bastiat.

Personally I am a libertarian so I think that it is a very accurate defenition.
But knowing that most people aren't libertarians I wonder what are the thoughts about it?

(And the full essay by Bastiat; http://bastiat.org/en/government.html)

[Erik]

Personally I'm a socialist so I think it is a ******** defenition.

To me government is just an organization that allows people to cooperate for the benefit of it's people as a whole.
I see it as a tool that is handled by the masses (in the case of a democracy).

For example: everybody COULD build their own pieces of road from their door to wherever they want to go.
But it's much more efficient if everybody cooperated to build a road network that connects everybody to eachother.
A government allows this kind of mass-cooperation to work.
Without a government you would never get the same level of infrastructure that everybody in Western countries enjoys.

Same also goes for things like the police:
Sure everybody or every street could just hire a guy to guard their home.
But cooperating trought the government is a much more efficient way to protect ourselves and to catch criminals.

I don't think the government should be used for everything. (ie: I'm not a communist)
But for some things it's such a handy tool that it far outweights any possible disadvantages.

IMO liberaterians are just very naive.
They beleive that by abolishing the government everything would suddently work out perfectly by itself.
They are kinda like communists in reverse.
Middle ground is usually the best option, even if it doesn't yield perfect results.

[ghost665]

Personally I'm a socialist so I think it is a ******** defenition.

To me government is just an organization that allows people to cooperate for the benefit of it's people as a whole.
I see it as a tool that is handled by the masses (in the case of a democracy).

For example: everybody COULD build their own pieces of road from their door to wherever they want to go.
But it's much more efficient if everybody cooperated to build a road network that connects everybody to eachother.
A government allows this kind of mass-cooperation to work.
Without a government you would never get the same level of infrastructure that everybody in Western countries enjoys.

Same also goes for things like the police:
Sure everybody or every street could just hire a guy to guard their home.
But cooperating trought the government is a much more efficient way to protect ourselves and to catch criminals.

I don't think the government should be used for everything. (ie: I'm not a communist)
But for some things it's such a handy tool that it far outweights any possible disadvantages.

IMO liberaterians are just very naive.
They beleive that by abolishing the government everything would suddently work out perfectly by itself.
They are kinda like communists in reverse.
Middle ground is usually the best option, even if it doesn't yield perfect results.

Im not sure whether im a socialist or a communist, i agree with what you say there does have to be balance personally i think that the state should own all infastructure and and key services that are vital to the running of the country though at the same time theres a line that the state has to respect, the people work for the state and the state works for the people, and to be a free society the state also has to respect the rights of the individual.

[Last Roman]

Libertarians aren't for abolishing all gov't, but keeping it to the minimal (basically barely seperating them from anarchists). But I agree, that can't work.

[darius]

Libertarians aren't for abolishing all gov't, but keeping it to the minimal (basically barely seperating them from anarchists). But I agree, that can't work.

Well there are both anarcho-capitalists and what you'd call minarchists who call themselves libertarians.

And to Erik; All government cooperation is forced. Wouldn't voluntary cooperation be better you could hire a company to build streets or whatever you don't have to build your own little strips. Claiming that you must have government for that is slightly ridiculous.
BTW what is your comment on the quote by Bastiat.

[Erik]

And to Erik; All government cooperation is forced. Wouldn't voluntary cooperation be better you could hire a company to build streets or whatever you don't have to build your own little strips.

No, because then you will get "leechers": people who refuse to cooperate but still harvest the benefits.
This in turn discourages the rest to cooperate, and your back at square one.

And I think if "government membership" was optional almost everybody would choose to become a member anyways because it saves everybody a lot of money, even those who fall under the highest tax level. (with the possible exception of a few multi-millionaires, but they can always move to Monaco)

Claiming that you must have government for that is slightly ridiculous.

Of course cooperation IS possible without a government.
All I said was that in some cases it is MORE EFFICIENT if you use a government.

BTW what is your comment on the quote by Bastiat.

I think you can prety much guess what the ********* represents.
Let's just say I'm not even slightly convinced.

[darius]

No, because then you will get "leechers": people who refuse to cooperate but still harvest the benefits.
This in turn discourages the rest to cooperate, and your back at square one.

Well when I said voluntary I meant payning for it, no paying then no service. And no roads aint a common good you can charge for them being used most likely somekind of subscription.

And I think if "government membership" was optional almost everybody would choose to become a member anyways because it saves everybody a lot of money, even those who fall under the highest tax level. (with the possible exception of a few multi-millionaires, but they can always move to Monaco)

Well if it's volutanry it's all hunky dory. However I don't agree that government saves money. Generally everything that government does a private company could at less than half the price. Due to government not operating on its own money and esseintaly the only thing it does is taking money from one group and give it to an another, in oneway or the other.

I think you can prety much guess what the ********* represents.
Let's just say I'm not even slightly convinced.

Well I'm wondering why then. I mean you cannot deny that government does redisribute money and that people are fighting over who should get the money. Government is esseintaly about leaching which you seem to loath.

[Erik]

Well when I said voluntary I meant payning for it, no paying then no service. And no roads aint a common good you can charge for them being used most likely somekind of subscription.

This might work to some degree with roads because with enough people you can ban people from using them.
But it won't work with things like street lighting or garbage collection. (people wil simply dump their garbage in the garden of somebody who does have a subscription)

Since everybody uses these things I think it makes sense that it's mandatory.

Well if it's volutanry it's all hunky dory. However I don't agree that government saves money. Generally everything that government does a private company could at less than half the price. Due to government not operating on its own money and esseintaly the only thing it does is taking money from one group and give it to an another, in oneway or the other.

That's simply not true.
In some cases private companies work more efficient than governments, but in other cases governments work more efficient than private companies.

Our electricity companies are a great example.
All electricity used to be controlled by our government.
But now it's privatised (split up between several electricity companies) and costs have gone UP, not down.

And don't even let me mention the British railroads.

And you greatly underestimate the function of the government.
They don't just pump money around, they also do a lot of planning, ususally long-term planning.
This is also why they get payed, just like the CEO and the board of directors of a company get payed.

You also forget that in a democracy the people are ultimately in control, they can essentially hire or fire any government official/politician.
There is a LOT of insentive for democratic governments to not waste tax money, because they will loose their job if they do.

Well I'm wondering why then. I mean you cannot deny that government does redisribute money and that people are fighting over who should get the money. Government is esseintaly about leaching which you seem to loath.

This is only true for (semi-) socialist governments.
Non-socialist governments are (or should be) all about pareto efficiency.

I think this is about government vs no government (or a minimalistic government)
I can also argue why I prefer a socialist government over a non-socialist "pareto efficiency" government but that's a whole new debate.

All I want to say is that I don't loath leeching.
In fact: I don't have a real problem with it as long as it inceases overall happyness. (ie: if the leech benefits more than the persons getting leeched)
My issue was about the EFFECT that leeching has in this case. (nobody wants to invest in roads anymore because they get frustrated by all the leechers)

Government, as enforced through modern civilization, is simply a suppression of the Beast. Were the Beast unobstructed by government, we'd probably gravitate towards anarchy--which would only linger back to fuedalism and repeat the cycle of civilization all over again...

I fully agree.

[Foolish]

I pretty much see the goverment as a sort of big brother: it likes to beat me up from time to time and make me feel bad every now and then, not to mention its nasty habbits of ********ting me in nearly every turn; on the other hand it makes me feel safe and is something I can hide behind when things get rough. Sure they drafted me into the army and they make me pay lousy taxes, but it's a real comfort to know that should I get into a bad shape, the goverment'd fix me up in no time - more or less.

[Pnutmaster]

"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." Fredric Bastiat.

It is indeed a great fiction because we are the actors, and we know our roles well. Government, as enforced through modern civilization, is simply a suppression of the Beast. Were the Beast unobstructed by government, we'd probably gravitate towards anarchy--which would only linger back to fuedalism and repeat the cycle of civilization all over again...

[LSJ]

Government seems to work better than not having one.
Unless we all have Bhuddist mentalities somehow, there will be problems with not having a governing body. High populations make clans very difficult to support.
A government (a good one that the people prefer) organizes the masses to work toward a common good. Instead of everyone doing whatever they want with their own resources, the government takes a little bit from everyone, and then we tell the gov't what to do with the materials. Of course, democracy is ideal for that, because the people are heard better and the few rulers do not become all-powerful. Too easily, at least.

I don't know if it would be possible to have a peaceful country without a moderately strong government in today's world.

[mrjesushat]

Government is a multi-headed cannibal beast (the only representative of its species) with seven torsos and no spine.

[MasterOfNone]

Bastiat's "The Law" (and Government and his other writings) is certainly a work that reflects my own feeling on the basic nature and role of government. Bastiat, in the above quotation, is of course referring to what government has become (in his time, and our time too) rather than what it should be. Looking at Bastiat's - and other proponents of natural law - definitions helps identify the principles.

As governments derive their just powers from the governed, one must ask why so many believe how governments can take money from one group and give it to another (socialism) by force when the individual, were he to do it, would find himself in jail. Should the same morality not apply to an individual as it does to a group or government?

The first 40 pages or so of Bastiat's "The Law" - http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html - is a must read for all who want to improve their understanding of the fundamental questions of government and its legitimacy, authority, role and nature.

=======
Each of us has a natural right — from God — to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties? If every person has the right to defend even by force — his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force — for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups. (Bastiat, The Law)

[Erik]

[I]Each of us has a natural right — from God — to defend his person, his liberty, and his property.

WTF?
Defending your property isn't a natural right.
Life and liberty are, but not property.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights

[MasterOfNone]

If you have no right to own and control property, then you have no right to life and liberty. Think about it. How can one have liberty except with someone else's permission to have a base from which to exercise that liberty and life? And of course this is no liberty at all, it is a privilege because you must ask permission whereas a right needs no such permission.

Justice George Sutherland put it succinctly:

It is not the right of property which is protected but the right to property. Property, per se, has no rights but the individual has three great rights, equally sacred from arbitrary interference: the right to life, the right to his liberty and the right to his property. These three rights are so bound together as to be essentially one right. To give a man his life but deny him his liberty is to take from him all that makes life worth living. To give him his liberty but take from him the property which is the fruit and badge of his liberty is still to leave him a slave.

The idea that the right to own and control property is not a right is a soclialist belief as it fits their philosophy and goals.

[Erik]

If you have no right to own and control property, then you have no right to life and liberty. Think about it.

I did and I don't see how this is true.

Think about the communist model:
Nobody has personal property, but everybody shares in the property of the commune.
Same goes for certain ("primitive") tribes.
Do such communists and tribesmen lack life and liberty? of course not!

The idea that the right to own and control property is not a right is a soclialist belief as it fits their philosophy and goals.

No.
The idea that the right to property is a NATURAL right is a liberal fantasy as it fits THEIR philosophy and goals.
How many philosophers think personal property is a natural right? only a small percentage I can assure you.

I'm not against the right to own property (I'm not a communist afterall) but I'm against labeling it as a NATURAL right when it is clearly a man-made right.

Let me ask you: do animals have a right to own property too?

Personal property is not necessary to live and be free.
In fact: it can be argued that property makes people LESS free, think about that.

[Aristophanes]

WTF?
Defending your property isn't a natural right.
Life and liberty are, but not property.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights

Considering that the things we consider 'property' are instrumental to the survival of a person and to his self-realization, the rights to life and liberty are meaningless without rights to own, trade and create property.

[Erik]

Considering that the things we consider 'property' are instrumental to the survival of a person and to his self-realization, the rights to life and liberty are meaningless without rights to own, trade and create property.

OK, to get this back on topic let's assume you are right that property is necessary for both life and liberty. (but not that property law itself is a natural law, that still goes way too far for me).

Then how does a government who takes away no more than 50% of your belonging prevent you to live and be free?
Will starve to death?
Will you become unable to think and speak?
Remember the argument is against ALL forms of government, not just against Communism.

And what if you lived in Anarchy and powerfull private corporations entered your home to take everything away?
Wouldn't that restrict your rights to life and liberty even more than Western governments do?
Don't western government protect your right to property more than they harm it? or is Somalia realy the most free country in the world?

[TheKwas]

Locke's position, as pointed out by many before me, is inconsistent when it comes to property. Firstly, his natural right to property only refers to raw resources manipulated by labour. The raw resources themselves belong to no-one. Locke believed that raw resources, such as land, were to be used at will by anyone at any time. I don't have to be an enviromentalist to point out the damage that could occur if land rights didn't exist and corporations (or anyone for that matter) had the right to build a mine or a cut down a forest (namely the Amazon) without restriction. Obviously some sort of social contract is needed in order to manage the Earth's raw resources in a healthy manner. A contract between the collective and individuals or individual firms. The power of the relationship always rooted in the collective, since they are the only ones, by default, that can claim "ownership"(for lack of a better word) over the resources.

If the collective sees that it is best that certain bits of resources are ran by individual firms or other groups, that is the collectives call. On the flip-side, the collective can also recall such "renting of resources" and run it directly as they see fit.

The second philosophical error Locke made, was that he deemed property as a natural right. Yet, the reason why he deemed liberty and labour as natural rights is because we are born with both, and despite anothers best attempts, ultimately we will always have control over both. No matter if someone puts a gun to our head and orders us around, we always have the choice and natural right to simply not do what he says (at the expense of getting shot of course). Locke went on to extend these natural rights to property because property is simply the infusion of raw resources and labour(a natural right). Since one's labour is infused into the item, the item is then your property because it contains your labour.
The error in this is the labeling of property as a "natural" right. Locke insisted labour was a natural right because you had ultimate control over it, no matter what, in the end. You don't have the same ability with physical property. Once you make a item, it can be stolen from you. You only "naturally" owned the time spent labouring, not the physical manifestation of said labour.

One might be able to conect the two ideas in a philsophical manner, but it would be doing so in a form of contractist rights rather than a form of natural rights.

[trackjacket]

For example: everybody COULD build their own pieces of road from their door to wherever they want to go.

I've come in late so I haven't read the entire topic, but this comment struck me as hilarious. As if in a libertarian society everyone will build personal roads. Seems like a ridiculously hypothetical argument to me. I mean, would everyone build their own cars or treat their own diseases?