The purpose of government?

[Preon1]

I was reading through the thread about the proposed tax cuts going through congress right now and started thinking about what I want my government to do for me.  The Declaration of Independence says:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

This is a little vague for me so I turned it into a list of things that I think are required to secure NOTHING MORE than life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness (I hate it when people think that happiness in guaranteed):

- Enforce public safety (keeping looters and murderers off the streets protects all three rights)
- Maintain a civil infrastructure (free access to roads to go where I want is liberty.  Sewers and trash disposal keeps the populace disease free, that protects life and the pursuit)
- Respond with assistance to tragedy (should my town be struck by plague, famine, or a force of nature, I would like the government to help the people get back on their feet.  This protects the pursuit)
- Negotiate treatises with other nations (I'm not sure how this directly affects liberty, but it seems so very necessary)
- Maintain a proper military (if the country is under threat from outsiders, then liberty and the pursuit are affected.  The government should be able to minimize that threat)
- Hold proper public elections (without access to voting, there's no liberty at all)
- And ofcourse collect taxes.  Without the cash, the gov't couldn't perform the above duties


There's got to be more than this.  I'm on the fence about education.  I realize the importance of having a literate populace but I think a lot of money is wasted on people who will never achieve past a fifth grade intelligence.  I also think that a lot of people are going to college these days that shouldn't.

I'm also on the fence about trade regulation within the country's borders.  Somehow I think that's an area where the gov't could butt out.

Anywho, I'm very interested in any changes that would be made to this list.  Afterwards I'm going to try to compare it to the US government to see where I would trim the fat if I had ultimate decision-making capability.

[miko2d]

Preon,
 This issue is very complex. Or rather the solution is extremely simple while the explanation is more complex than many people realise. So I would have to refer to to libertarian sites for detailed justifications. It involves the definitions of rights and liberty which most people have no idea of.

 The government should exist to guarantee liberty - which is the same as private property.
 Basically, once a person's body and property is secure from violence and fraud, he is free to pursue his happiness. By fraud I mostly mean enforcement of implicit and explicit contracts.

 Unlike many other institutions, government is the only one that can use coercion. That is why it is a dangerous thing and is considered a necessary evil.

 Every individual's right is really an obligation of other people to respect and support that right. Basically, it's a system of relations of which claimant becomes a part through helping to maintain them.

 The only right an individual in a free society can have is a right to freely dispose of his/her property (including body).
 The only obligation is to respect that right of the others and help maintain them - through military service or taxes for defence, for example.

 Any other right given to someone necessarily involves forcing an obligation on someone else - which constitutes oppression.


- Enforce public safety (keeping looters and murderers off the streets protects all three rights) - YES. That is the most important - and really only one, once you include foreign agressors.

- Maintain a civil infrastructure (free access to roads to go where I want is liberty. Sewers and trash disposal keeps the populace disease free, that protects life and the pursuit)

 Roads - possibly. Infrastructure - certainly not. A private company or some kind of communal ownership arrangement can provide services. Such institution need not have the powers of coersion. They contract with suppliers/consumers and government guarantees the enforcement of contracts.
 Even now most utilities are handled on local level. If I want to live on a glacier or inhospitable mountain, why do you have to pay for my sewer?
 
- Respond with assistance to tragedy (should my town be struck by plague, famine, or a force of nature, I would like the government to help the people get back on their feet. This protects the pursuit)

 NO. You do not need power of coersion for that. Can't opress someone unwilling to waste his resources and risk his life to save/help someone else. Especially if that someone else's trouble is linked to his decision about risks/rewards (living in a tornado state, building a house next to an ocean, etc.). Guaranteed bailout will cause people behave in a risky manner and cause more dearths/suffering/damage in the long run. Check the term "moral hazard" in a dictionary.
 Private voluntary and paid help and private insurance covers that - and the cost of the risk is paid for by a person taking the risk.

- Negotiate treatises with other nations (I'm not sure how this directly affects liberty, but it seems so very necessary)

 Military ans security matters - definitely. That is a part of the first clause, really. Trade and commerce - no.
 
- Maintain a proper military (if the country is under threat from outsiders, then liberty and the pursuit are affected. The government should be able to minimize that threat)

 Yes. But that is a part of the first clause, too.
 
- Hold proper public elections (without access to voting, there's no liberty at all)

 You would be surprised, but that is a minor technical issue. If the government sticks to the basic responcibilities, it does not really matter if it's a monarchy or democracy.
 I mean, it's main functions are military and minor law enforcement - minor because many of current crime categories would not exist and 99.9% of real crimes would be handled on the local level by local police - maybe even provided by private security firms.
 So the major thing the government would do would be military - and military is an institution least compatible with democracy anyway!
 Also, the only branch of government directly charged with guaranteeing our rights - judicial - is not democratically elected but appointed for life even now.
 
- And ofcourse collect taxes. Without the cash, the gov't couldn't perform the above duties

 Sure. That is also technical issue. Need an army or courts - must pay for it.


 miko

[Sandman]

Miko... I think you're wrong about trade. International trade should be controlled by the government, IMHO.

[whgates3]

i take that as just meaning the the rôle of gov't is to keep the nation out of the hands of vicious totalitarians like GeorgeIII, the rest is to be hands off - the bill of rights is in line with that, i think...too bad jefferson ƒµ€|‹ed it up - otherwise you wouldn't be sending ½ your $ to some pompus lying windbag

[miko2d]

Sandman_SBM: Miko... I think you're wrong about trade. International trade should be controlled by the government, IMHO.

 Sure, with security at stake, a free citizen can be drafted or taxed or prevented from selling suppies to an enemy.

 Anything else is theoretically and practically incompartible with liberty. If you restrict your citizens' buying or selling, that means preventing them from freely disposing of their property (including voluntary transfer/exchange) - for the benefit of some other people - according to principles arbitrarily determined by someone (despot, majority, etc.). That means that the government partially takes over your property/liberty. You have a title for it but cannot do what you want with it - is it really yours?
 So you have clear and obvious oppression and exploitation.

 So you have a seat of power that can benefit some to the detriment of others. You now have scoundrels vying for such power and trying to increase it and people/corporations trying to influence/corrupt/subvert it and you end up with growing oppression and eventually socialism like ours.

 Rights of some to trade protection is an obligation on others to suffer/pay for it. Why would anyone voluntarily incur such an obligation without an opression to be forced to act against his will?

 miko

[john9001]

Preon1 wants to put hundreds of thousands of govt workers out of a job.  shame on you.

[Sandman]

I understand where you're coming from, Miko. Trade regulations seem usurp the rights of individuals to buy and sell their property.

What about trade imbalances? Does it not weaken a country if they import more than they export?

Maybe I'm naive and tend to oversimplify, but it seems to me that when you get down to it, open warfare is really about economics and the richest country will almost always win.

[miko2d]

john9001: Preon1 wants to put hundreds of thousands of govt workers out of a job.  shame on you.

 Not really. It is me (I?) who want to do that but his statements are pure socialism and oppression - hopefully unwitting. His statement is basically a republican "small government" statement, not libertarian.
 Republicans are really dumb socialists who fail to realise that once allowed to opress, the government will tend to do it more and more. Small difference from Democrats who are mix of honest, lying and dumb socialists - those building communism openly, clandestinly or unwittingly (like republicans).

 Doesn't he want to entrust the government to "Respond with assistance ... to help the people get back on their feet".

 Isn't all that a government does is assisting some groups at the expence of the others?
 Isn't an economic downturn a "force of nature"? Doesn't depression sometimes cause as much damage as plaque or famine? Why help a rich victim of flooding but not a poor victim of poverty?

 So why not play with labor laws, trade controls, monetary policies, "stimulus packages", zoning controls, regulations and redistributive taxation to "help"?
 How about shooting a few "exploiters" and nationalizing some industries? Or declaring a war to "help peope" to someone else's oil?

 miko

[Montezuma]

Originally posted by Preon1

- Enforce public safety (keeping looters and murderers off the streets protects all three rights)

You've opened a can of worms with each one, but I'll focus on this one.  What is public safety?

Building codes?  Food safety regulations?  Workplace safety?  Transportation safety?

[Preon1]

Miko,
First off, I think you're coming from a national government standpoint.  I'm reasoning ALL government.

Okay, I think I can be convinced that the gov't can stay out of disaster relief such as weather, but what about something like plague?  If a population becomes infected, shouldn't the gov't act to quarantine the area before the rest of the country goes under?

Also, you agree on roads but not public sanitation...  I have to disagree with that.  If I pay for a public service to pick up my trash but my neighbor does not, then there's an essential problem: if my neighbor is so lazy as to not bury his own trash, a huge trash pile will build up in his lawn.  After long enough the place will be so unsanitary that I'll be forced to move. His freedom has now encroached on mine.

I don't think the government should be as small as you're describing.  With a population like ours there NEEDS to be at least a FEW mandatory public services or people won't be able to live.


John9001, yes I am.  They can get other jobs.

Montezuma, good points.

[miko2d]

Preon1: ...but what about something like plague?  If a population becomes infected, shouldn't the gov't act to quarantine the area before the rest of the country goes under?

 Sure - but that does not contradict what I said (really libertarian platform) at all. Look at it this way - when someone's action threaten to violate my private domain through infecting it by uninvited germs, I have a right to protection.
 He may even not be at fault - though how he got the germs while I didn't may have resulted from his decision to take risks (exotic vacation, sex with strangers, etc.) or save on safety measures (foregoing vaccination or soap use). But it's the same if he lost his mind and started shooting a machinegun. I'd prefer to contain him with minimum damage but contained he must be.
 Never fear, in a free state you woudl still have plenty of protection and security.

If I pay for a public service to pick up my trash but my neighbor does not, then there's an essential problem: if my neighbor is so lazy as to not bury his own trash, a huge trash pile will build up in his lawn.  After long enough the place will be so unsanitary that I'll be forced to move.

 Not at all. If you mean you do not like the look - tough. He may not like your appearance either. But I am sure you did not mean that.
 What you probably ment was the effect of him attracting flies and vermin, inflicting toxic water run-off and offending smell (chemicals) ON YOUR PROPERTY. That is a clear violation/invasion and you are entitled to protection - same as if he were shooting bullets at your house.

 I mean, would you really mind if he somehow magically kept all those effects limited to his property? Why would you care if he even shot a cannon there?

 Also, risks are included to that too, not just direct actions. If he is doing stuff that is likely to explode you once every ten years, or a huge flimsy tower that would topple on you and affect your property, that's the same as if he was doing 1/10 of the real damage every year.

 There is obvious reasonable damage/interference we are willing to accept from others - smoke from a stove, smell of food, water runoff, etc. But all the environmental constraints on pollutants and emissions would still be there - much more robustly enforced because they would affect private, not "common = nobody's" property. And there would not be excemptions for polluters for "common good". Buy a piece of land and dump your stuff on it - as long as it does not affect another person's proplerty.

 I did warn that the libertarian paltform was deceptively simple - it really covers everything. Of course if you need more - like your neigbour or the whole town not painting his house in a color that offends you, you can enter into a contract/agreement with him by sacrificing some of your rights in exchange. Including him being obligated to sell his property only to a person who would also agree to the same conditions. And communal - collectively owned - property is still administered by vote or whatever you choose - nothing new here.

 You can have as liitle or as much communal element as you voluntarily willing to assume.

 miko