|
|
|
Hittman
Skeptic Friend
134 Posts |
 Posted - 11/09/2008 : 19:44:08 [Permalink]
|
| I'm curious: how does one measure the size of the government? Employees? Budget? Square footage? Someone combination of factors? |
That's a great question. I'm not sure of the answer. I don't think there is a single answer.
You measure the size of government by the number of people it employs and how much money it costs to operate. These stats are probably easily available. I'd look them up, but they are not really relevant to the "big government" complaint.
Obviously as our population increases the size of our government will increase as well. |
But the proportion should stay relatively the same.
% of the GNP would be a good place to start. How much of it does the government consume?
But it's only a starting place. It's much harder to measure, analytically, just how much inconvenience they cause, how many ideas they've stifled, how many business never started because people didn't want to deal with government BS, and just how damn annoying they are on a day to day basis.
| Homeland security. Nothing they have done could stop me from hijacking a plane and crashing it into something. Nothing they have done could stop me from making a OK City style fertilizer bomb and taking out a building. Nothing they have done could stop me from making a giant napalm bomb and driving it into a school. This agency was created so the government could be seen to be doing something. What they do doesn't matter, just as long as officials can point to the agency and make a claim of action. Tom ridge, making people afraid of the color orange since 2002! The whole agency needs to be scrapped and re-done. |
Scrapped, no doubt. Redone, I'd disagree with.
I like the phrase "Security Theater." The ridiculous inconvenience* caused by the TSA doesn't increase security at all. It's just there for the appearance of security. Like all theater it's an illusion.
*My spell checker didn't recognize my unique spelling of inconvenience and suggested "incompetence." Pretty close.
Earmarks are a symptom. Sure, we should get rid of them, but the real problem is the people voting themselves a piece of the treasury, which persists with all kinds of government programs.
That, and the tendency of people in power liking it, and wanting more, and getting it nearly every time they try.
| I am not, by any stretch, convinced that the private sector is magically and automatically better and more efficient at running things that the government is. |
There's no magic to it at all. It's a law of economics. A company that does a lousy job can be replaced by a company that does a good job. An inefficient company will be buried by an efficient company. It doesn't always happen as soon as we like, but it always happens, unless the lousy inefficient company has been successful in getting laws passed that keep it in business and either hurt their competitors or raise huge barriers to entry. (Which is a case of the government interfering with the normal workings of the marketplace.) So it applies to your local meat market, but not to, say, Comcast, who has a government approved monolopy.
In a truly free market (i.e. not the US) a company would have to do a good job to stay in business, or someone else will come along and eat their lunch. But the government is under no such obligation. Don't like the "service" at the IRS? Too bad. There's only one and customer satisfaction isn't part of their job description. Need to get the approval of the local building inspector fast because delays are costing you money? Tough beans. He'll get to it when he feels like it, and there is nothing you can do about it. Some big huge government bureaucracy turns out to be an immense failure? No problem, they just demand more money, and usually get it. They don't improve because they have very little incentive to improve. They're not efficient because they have no incentive to be efficient. By comparison private companies have every incentive to be improve and be efficient – their survival depends on it.
|
When a vampire Jehovah's Witness knocks on your door, don't invite him in. Blood Witness: http://bloodwitness.com
Get Smartenized® with the Quick Hitts blog: http://www.davehitt.com/blog2/index.phpBlog |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2008 : 22:16:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hittman
% of the GNP would be a good place to start. How much of it does the government consume? |
Then the White House would be a good place to start, because it provides such data (table 1.3). Here's my summary from 1940 onwards, with presidents and parties added:
------------+---+------+------
President | P | Year | Out
------------+---+------+------
Roosevelt | D | 1940 | 9.8
Roosevelt | D | 1941 | 12.0
Roosevelt | D | 1942 | 24.3
Roosevelt | D | 1943 | 43.6
Roosevelt | D | 1944 | 43.6
Truman | D | 1945 | 41.9
Truman | D | 1946 | 24.8
Truman | D | 1947 | 14.8
Truman | D | 1948 | 11.6
Truman | D | 1949 | 14.3
Truman | D | 1950 | 15.6
Truman | D | 1951 | 14.2
Truman | D | 1952 | 19.4
Einsenhower | R | 1953 | 20.4
Einsenhower | R | 1954 | 18.8
Einsenhower | R | 1955 | 17.3
Einsenhower | R | 1956 | 16.5
Einsenhower | R | 1957 | 17.0
Einsenhower | R | 1958 | 17.9
Einsenhower | R | 1959 | 18.7
Einsenhower | R | 1960 | 17.8
Kennedy | D | 1961 | 18.4
Kennedy | D | 1962 | 18.8
Kennedy | D | 1963 | 18.6
Johnson | D | 1964 | 18.5
Johnson | D | 1965 | 17.2
Johnson | D | 1966 | 17.9
Johnson | D | 1967 | 19.4
Johnson | D | 1968 | 20.6
Nixon | R | 1969 | 19.4
Nixon | R | 1970 | 19.3
Nixon | R | 1971 | 19.5
Nixon | R | 1972 | 19.6
Nixon | R | 1973 | 18.8
Ford | R | 1974 | 18.7
Ford | R | 1975 | 21.3
Ford | R | 1976 | 21.4
Carter | D | 1977 | 20.7
Carter | D | 1978 | 20.7
Carter | D | 1979 | 20.2
Carter | D | 1980 | 21.7
Reagan | R | 1981 | 22.2
Reagan | R | 1982 | 23.1
Reagan | R | 1983 | 23.5
Reagan | R | 1984 | 22.2
Reagan | R | 1985 | 22.9
Reagan | R | 1986 | 22.4
Reagan | R | 1987 | 21.6
Reagan | R | 1988 | 21.3
Bush | R | 1989 | 21.2
Bush | R | 1990 | 21.8
Bush | R | 1991 | 22.3
Bush | R | 1992 | 22.1
Clinton | D | 1993 | 21.4
Clinton | D | 1994 | 21.0
Clinton | D | 1995 | 20.7
Clinton | D | 1996 | 20.3
Clinton | D | 1997 | 19.6
Clinton | D | 1998 | 19.2
Clinton | D | 1999 | 18.7
Clinton | D | 2000 | 18.4
Bush | R | 2001 | 18.5
Bush | R | 2002 | 19.4
Bush | R | 2003 | 20.0
Bush | R | 2004 | 19.9
Bush | R | 2005 | 20.2
Bush | R | 2006 | 20.4
Bush | R | 2007 | 20.0
Bush (est) | R | 2008 | 20.5
------------+---+------+------
Average | 20.4
-----------------------+------ |
Federal spending (Out) is expressed as a percentage of that year's GDP. The average has been 20.4% since 1940, with Democrats spending an average of 20.66% across 33 adminstrative years, and Republicans spending 20.22% across 36 years. I wish the data went back further, or I had more time to look.| But it's only a starting place. It's much harder to measure, analytically, just how much inconvenience they cause, how many ideas they've stifled, how many business never started because people didn't want to deal with government BS, and just how damn annoying they are on a day to day basis. |
Well, I'm not sure how those things apply specially to governments, because I've encountered all of the same things with my family (more or less). In other words, so long as government is run by human beings, the problems you encounter with the government are problems you'll encounter with private citizens, too.
I mean, you can't tell me that nobody has ever encountered a doom-saying friend who has squashed someone's entrepenurial spirit simply by saying, "that's a stupid idea," even when it probably wasn't stupid. Interpersonal relationships are fraught with annoyances, BS and inconvenience, no matter how independent they are from government or even just from a large, private, corporate buraucracy. People suck. They're greedy, shortsighted and self-righteous.| There's no magic to it at all. It's a law of economics. |
There seem to be plenty of economists who disagree that it is a law.| A company that does a lousy job can be replaced by a company that does a good job. An inefficient company will be buried by an efficient company. It doesn't always happen as soon as we like, but it always happens, unless the lousy inefficient company has been successful in getting laws passed that keep it in business and either hurt their competitors or raise huge barriers to entry. (Which is a case of the government interfering with the normal workings of the marketplace.) |
If the government is completely absent, an inefficient or otherwise crappy company can maintain itself by hiring thugs to destroy or otherwise interfere with its would-be competitors. The economic version of "might makes right" would be law of the land, and thuggery and other coercion would be the "normal workings of the marketplace." Again, because people suck.| So it applies to your local meat market, but not to, say, Comcast, who has a government approved monolopy. |
What would life be like with three or four cable companies all trying to wire a neighborhood? Guaranteed that there would be numerous "accidental" cuts while digging, and after all the cable was laid, every time a workman went to connect up one home's service he could disconnect a half-dozen others in a couple of minutes. To the average consumer, every company would look about equally bad. With such a vision, it's quite probable that cable TV would never have gotten off the ground without localities issuing and guaranteeing monopoly rights. I sure wouldn't have been an investor without them (not that I was a ground-floor investor, my neighborhood got cable when I was six).
Of course, the other side of that regulatory coin is that to secure their monopoly rights, the cable companies had to give up the power to set prices. As well as regulating which company gets to put cable to which houses, the government also regulated the prices for the services offered, to ensure that the monopoly-holding companies didn't gouge the consumers. I hear "bribes and kickbacks" coming up already, but in a free market, there would be price-fixing as well as brute-force thuggery.
Hell, even in non-free markets, price-fixing is a relatively common anti-competitive practice. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2008 : 23:30:46 [Permalink]
|
No such thing has ever existed outside of a classroom. So you can't know what would actually occur in one. Hypothetically: I don't see anything good in the concept because free market hypotheses all assume there are no bad actors. That is pure naivety. The default position of our species is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff. Even if everyone agrees to play fair, not everyone will actually play fair. A truly free market would be a disaster.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2008 : 07:45:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Original Intent:
The argument is that the representatives are supposed to protect us from ourselves, not represent what we want? We don't want that... case and point./... arguably the most important job out their has been pandered to the parties and partisan politics, instead of with the learned folks of the electoral college.... |
Out of all of the strawmen built in the above post, this one is the most outrageous. Can't you do better than to offer red herrings and strawman arguments? Who exactly said that our representatives are not supposed to represent us by working for what we want? Did you actually read any of the posts before you posted???
|
Maybe I misunderstood this:
You can't find a voter who actually understands what they are. In FL there were five or six actually on the ballot, and it took me the better part of an afternoon to discover the full text, the "plain" English explanations, and something to explain the consequences of a yes/no vote on them. Most people go to the poll with a list given them by some third party telling them how to vote on ballot propositions because the damn things are difficult to understand (which is why we hire/elect people to make and enact laws in the first place). |
I read the statement to mean that we elect people so that people don't have to go to the polls and vote for laws based on limited information, or written in such a way that they are confusing.... protecting them from themselves.... And they are obviously not giving the people what they want, hence the continual passage of propositions.
I read all of the posts, and continue to do so. I have limited time, so I do not intrect myslef as much as I would like, but when I do.. I do read. Who said I said that that someone said that that our representatives are not supposed to work for what we want? I simply said that their purpose is to represent us..... Not their party, not special interests, and not to protect us from ourselves. If the purpose is to protect us from oursleves, then limit suffrage... but that is another argument, and one that needs a new amendment.
I do not always communicate my thoguhts as well as I would like.
How would a representative who polls his constituency on every issue and then votes as his constituents want differ in any substantial way from a pure democracy (mob rule)? Why bother having representatives in such a case?
Ideally, candidates are supposed to tell us how they will vote on various issues, we choose one based upon those promises, and then trust them to actually vote that way without asking us all how to vote over and over again. The media tends to report back to us how our representatives are voting, so that when their terms are up, we can keep them if they've been making good on their promises, or vote them out if they have betrayed our trust.
Perhaps referenda are a fine way for representatives to say, "this isn't something that we made promises about, so you fine citizens can make this decision." But should they be a way for a small group of citizens to say, "our representatives refuse to vote the way we like on this particular issue, but instead of voting in representatives for us, we're just going to make this a law without them?" |
I despise fingers in the air.
Their is an obvious disconnect in what the representatives are doing, and what their constituents want. "Change" is going to turn around and bite us all in the arse. Do the good people of the Sovereign State of California really not want homosexual marriage? Were they tricked by flashy wording? Was a no vote a yes vote? Does it matter? If it does matter... why? What makes voting over flashy, hollow wording and different then voting over a flashy, hollow candidate? Both are right their in the constitutions of the United States and the states that put them in their constitutions.
The rights of the states to determine their own path is, IMHO, essential for the survival of the nation. Their are things I do not want in my state, but the people in Indiana do want. Let the people of Indiana decide for themselves. Some of my like-minded neighbors can move to Indiana, and I will welcome some of the Hoosiers that think along the same lines as my neighbors. We will be a bunch of like-minded folks who are tearing the hell out of the fed, instead of each other.....
Thank god it would take a federal amendment to stop the states from going ahead with ballot initiatives....Now... if we just get the states to follow the citizens lead to call a constitutional convention to bitch-slap the fed. |
The Circus of Carnage... because you should be able to deal with politicians like you do pissant noobs. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2008 : 08:25:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
No such thing has ever existed outside of a classroom. So you can't know what would actually occur in one. Hypothetically: I don't see anything good in the concept because free market hypotheses all assume there are no bad actors. That is pure naivety. The default position of our species is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff. Even if everyone agrees to play fair, not everyone will actually play fair. A truly free market would be a disaster. |
Right. People complain about "government BS" and regulation is always bad, but I honetly don't mind that some agency is making sure that when I buy, say, one bottle of 100 tablets each containing 100mg of ibuprofin, it's really just that. And not 99 tablets. Or 100 tablets of only 90mg of ibuprofin. Or 0 mg!!
There are a myriad where I'd rather an agency regulate something than try my luck with the "free market." Replace "ibuprofin" with "cancer-curing drug" and you can see my point. If we do away with "government BS" and let the "free market" have its way, how do I know I'm getting my cancer-curing drug? Sure, once the evil company that makes and markets sugar pills as my cancer-curing drug is exposed, then they'll quickly go out of business. But so what? They'll have made tens or even hunudreds of thousands (selling sugar pills for $1000 a pill), lots of people will have made no progress in curing their cancer, and the company will just start up again under a new name and do the same thing over again. Much easier than pouring millions into research!!
As Dude said, once you posit that there are bad actors (and there are) then the "free market" fails. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2008 : 11:38:28 [Permalink]
|
Original_Intent:
Their is an obvious disconnect in what the representatives are doing, and what their constituents want. |
On the whole, I am pleased with the job my representatives are doing. On the other hand, I'm sure that those who voted against them are not so pleased. But soon enough they will get their chance to remove those who they don't agree with from office. There is nothing “obvious” about the disconnect you speak of. If I voted for someone to represent the interests of my community and they went off and did not at least try to do that, I would vote against them the next time they ask me for another term. Their voting record is public and easy to access.
Original_Intent:
Do the good people of the Sovereign State of California really not want homosexual marriage? |
As I said earlier, a constitutional amendment is serious business and should not be so easy as to require only a simple majority vote on a ballot initiative to pass. In this case, we are talking about the removal of rights granted to everyone, of a specific subgroup, based on the religious beliefs of the supporters for a change in the constitution. They represent a special interest, even if it's a large one. It is the first time rights granted to law abiding individuals was actually taken away from them. I think it will be successfully challenged in court. But now we have to spend the money to do that. Changing the constitution should not be such an easy process.
Original_Intent:
Were they tricked by flashy wording? |
Yes.
Original_Intent:
Was a no vote a yes vote? Does it matter? If it does matter... why? |
I think deceptive advertising matters. Don't you?
Original_Intent:
What makes voting over flashy, hollow wording and different then voting over a flashy, hollow candidate? Both are right their in the constitutions of the United States and the states that put them in their constitutions. |
We obviously need more transparency when it comes to ballot initiatives, if we're going to keep them, which I have previously mentioned. As for representatives who don't represent us, we should throw the bums out. But once again, if a special interest group finances a ballot measure in order to bypass our lawmakers, it doesn't follow that our lawmakers are not doing their job. All it takes to get a measure on a ballot is enough qualifying signatures. Any piece of crap legislation can make it to the ballot. Legislation that would not make it through congress because the proposed change is costly, and would benefit only a small minority of voters can make it to the ballot. Sometimes it doesn't benefit any voters outside of the special interest group (sometimes from out of state) with lots of money to throw around. And with enough money behind it, almost any piece of shit can pass.
And yes, I am well aware that many of these same problems exist in government. But I think that holding our representatives accountable is the more practical way to go. But exactly how to do that should be the subject of another discussion.
Original_Intent:
The rights of the states to determine their own path is, IMHO, essential for the survival of the nation. |
And ballot measures has to do with states rights how?
| Origi |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2008 : 12:42:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
If we do away with "government BS" and let the "free market" have its way, how do I know I'm getting my cancer-curing drug? |
With "government BS," how do you know you are? You have to trust that the FDA is actually doing its job. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Hittman
Skeptic Friend
134 Posts |
Posted - 11/11/2008 : 10:01:13 [Permalink]
|
Well, I'm not sure how those things apply specially to governments, because I've encountered all of the same things with my family (more or less). In other words, so long as government is run by human beings, the problems you encounter with the government are problems you'll encounter with private citizens, too.
I mean, you can't tell me that nobody has ever encountered a doom-saying friend who has squashed someone's entrepenurial spirit simply by saying, "that's a stupid idea," even when it probably wasn't stupid. Interpersonal relationships are fraught with annoyances, BS and inconvenience, no matter how independent they are from government or even just from a large, private, corporate buraucracy. People suck. They're greedy, shortsighted and self-righteous. |
But there's a huge difference. You can ignore the naysayers if you want, you can't ignore the government.
If someone says "I want to make custom knit hats and gloves in my home so I can get off welfare and support my family" they can ignore naysayers. But when women in Vermont were doing just that, the government came in and shut them down. They couldn't ignore the government.
Women in NYC were running small business doing braiding and cornrowing until the government stepped in and told them they were breaking the law. They'd have to get licensed, which required two years of school. The schooling did not cover braiding and cornrowing. They couldn't ignore the government.
| If the government is completely absent, an inefficient or otherwise crappy company can maintain itself by hiring thugs to destroy or otherwise interfere with its would-be competitors. The economic version of "might makes right" would be law of the land, and thuggery and other coercion would be the "normal workings of the marketplace." Again, because people suck. |
You're describing anarchy, which doesn't work. I'm saying government should be as small as possible. Your hypothetical involves people initiating force against other people, and defending against that is one of the few legitimate roles of government.
However, the government has the tendency to become the thugs you've described. Look at what happened with Liberty Dollars. Someone was making coins that were backed by gold, and no one was being coerced to use them. Government thugs came in, stole all his assets, and are attempting to shut him down. Their Might Makes Right, because government people suck just as much as any other people.
| What would life be like with three or four cable companies all trying to wire a neighborhood? |
Wonderful, I think. I'd have a choice. Right now I have to pay Time Warner for cable TV and internet access. I have no choice. If there were three or four companies to pick from, I'm guessing my monthly bill would be about half of what it is now. It would certainly be lower.
| Guaranteed that there would be numerous "accidental" cuts while digging, and after all the cable was laid, every time a workman went to connect up one home's service he could disconnect a half-dozen others in a couple of minutes. |
Nonsense. They'd be liable for responsible for any cuts they made.
| Of course, the other side of that regulatory coin is that to secure their monopoly rights, the cable companies had to give up the power to set prices. As well as regulating which company gets to put cable to which houses, the government also regulated the prices for the services offered, to ensure that the monopoly-holding companies didn't gouge the consumers. |
And they do so well with that, don't they? Ask a Comcast customer about their service.
I agree with you that people suck. Natural market forces, as well as customer reaction, helps keep the suckage to a minimum if there's a free market. With the government the suckage is entrenched, backed up by guns, and virtually impossible to fight.
| No such thing has ever existed outside of a classroom. So you can't know what would actually occur in one. Hypothetically: I don't see anything good in the concept because free market hypotheses all assume there are no bad actors. That is pure naivety. The default position of our species is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff. Even if everyone agrees to play fair, not everyone will actually play fair. A truly free market would be a disaster. |
You are confusing a free market with Anarchy. They are two very different concepts.
Where do you get the idea that the free market assumes there will be no bad actors? There will always be bad actors. Sometimes it will be due to dishonesty, sometimes it will be the result of incompetence, sometimes it will simply be a bad business model. But in a free market that is all self-correcting. Dishonesty and incompetence can be addressed through legal channels, but more importantly, as the reputation of the dishonest/incompetent business man will force him out of business as more competent and more honest people vie for the customer.
| Right. People complain about "government BS" and regulation is always bad, but I honetly don't mind that some agency is making sure that when I buy, say, one bottle of 100 tablets each containing 100mg of ibuprofin, it's really just that. And not 99 tablets. Or 100 tablets of only 90mg of ibuprofin. Or 0 mg!! |
Anyone doing that would be guilty of fraud, and pretty easily found out and punished.
| As Dude said, once you posit that there are bad actors (and there are) then the "free market" fails. |
Only if you have no real understanding of the free market. It isn't anarchy. It isn't a license to commit fraud.
| With "government BS," how do you know you are? You have to trust that the FDA is actually doing its job. |
And what happens if they don't? The FDA has approved dangerous and ineffective drugs. But it didn't go out of business, and no one was fired.
|
When a vampire Jehovah's Witness knocks on your door, don't invite him in. Blood Witness: http://bloodwitness.com
Get Smartenized® with the Quick Hitts blog: http://www.davehitt.com/blog2/index.phpBlog |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 11/11/2008 : 11:39:21 [Permalink]
|
dude wrote: | Ballot measures/initiatives/propositions should, imo, be illegal. You can't find a voter who actually understands what they are. |
I agree here because the average voter often doesn't have the time or incentive to learn all about a proposed law, while it is the elected officials paid job to do so. Of course the problem is that the elected officials are elected by popular vote, which is often a very poor measure of intellect and sound judgment. Then again, I can't think of a better system at the moment, so this sounds good for now.
chaloobi quote: | it should be more difficult to ammend a Constitution than that. Too much tyranny of the majority potential. |
I agree! Dave brought up the dangers of “mob rule” – implying that we need to make sure we have a governing structure which is more sophisticated than that. The first thing I thought when I heard Prop 8 passed was this quote from Ben Franklin (which Hittman already mentions – and which I don't regard as a cliché! ):
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for dinner.”
I disagree with Hittman's use of Franklin's quote to criticize all direct democracy, where for me refers more to a more specific circumstance of the mob majority attacking an unpopular minority. I do think that direct democracy becomes more and more useless and/or dangerous the larger the pool of people involved becomes because the voters empathize with and acknowledge minorities in their society less and less.
Most legislative issues are more sophisticated than majorities limiting the rights of unpopular minorities. Take the bailout – sure, they gave huge bonuses to the same assholes who created this problem. But at the same time, the economy was in a position where it might collapse. The best solution would have been a better bailout – one that didn't give any bonuses and which involved sure investments where the taxpayers would eventually come out ahead. But there were many forces pushing against each other, and what is one legislators supposed to do in that circumstance? There are many legislators with strong ethics and integrity, but when put between a rock and a hard place, what can they do? Clearly both McCain and Obama had good political reasons to oppose the bailout, and yet both of them supported it, and for complex reasons.
I'm not against democracy, but I am against forms of democracy which don't include protection of unpopular minorities from the majority (the wolves and lamb). I'm not sure what the right structure to do this is, but the majority should not be allowed to put into law restrictions on the lifestyle choices and family structures of consenting adult minorities, just because the majority finds them icky.
Incidentally, that goes for Mormons and Islamic minorities who have multiple wives (of legal age). And I say this as a feminist who finds polygyny (one husband with multiple wives) to be inherently sexist. The thing is, if people go off and do it anyway, often not legally recognizing these socially legit marriages results in additional social problems. Obviously with gay couples there are issues with next of kin rights being challenged by the deceased partner's family, as well as problems with child custody. Mormon co-wives often apply for welfare as a “single mother,” and Islamic co-wives often have few legal options when their husbands are abusive.
chaloobi wrote: | The system is structured so that no other party can be sustained and if we care we are bound to vote for the least bad. Our representative democracy is broken. |
I feel powerless as a vote |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/11/2008 : 11:47:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hittman
I agree with you that people suck. Natural market forces, as well as customer reaction, helps keep the suckage to a minimum if there's a free market. With the government the suckage is entrenched, backed up by guns, and virtually impossible to fight. |
But the choice, as you said, isn't between a free market on the one hand and government on the other. "As little government as possible" is not free-market capitalism, it is laissez-faire capitalism. Obviously, government isn't a bad thing to you when it acts to diminish the amount of coercion within the markets, but that's only because the government itself coerces actors within the market to behave better. Anti-fraud laws are government regulation of the markets, for example.| Where do you get the idea that the free market assumes there will be no bad actors? There will always be bad actors. Sometimes it will be due to dishonesty, sometimes it will be the result of incompetence, sometimes it will simply be a bad business model. |
Bad actors aren't those who make mistakes, but are those who use coercion within the marketplace, which makes trading not free by definition. That coercion is why you're arguing against government interference, but it comes from private citizens as well. In other words, there will always be a need for market regulation so long as there are dishonest people. The question is how much freedom should be eliminated from the markets, not whether or not the markets should be free. They can't be.| But in a free market that is all self-correcting. |
A lot of people believed that for the last five decades or so, which is why we have thousands of economists right now trying to figure out where the theory of the "rational market" has failed.| Right. People complain about "government BS" and regulation is always bad, but I honetly don't mind that some agency is making sure that when I buy, say, one bottle of 100 tablets each containing 100mg of ibuprofin, it's really just that. And not 99 tablets. Or 100 tablets of only 90mg of ibuprofin. Or 0 mg!! |
Anyone doing that would be guilty of fraud, and pretty easily found out and punished. |
Which is nothing less than the use of force within the marketplace.| Only if you have no real understanding of the free market. It isn't anarchy. It isn't a license to commit fraud. |
No, the point is that because there exist people who will commit fraud, the markets will never be completely free.| With "government BS," how do you know you are? You have to trust that the FDA is actually doing its job. |
And what happens if they don't? The FDA has approved dangerous and ineffective drugs. |
That was my point.| But it didn't go out of business, and no one was fired. |
Is that required? The fact that (for example) Merck spent over a billion dollars developing and marketing Vioxx, and didn't make it back before the pulling the drug off the market isn't punishment enough? They certainly couldn't stay in business if they did that with every drug. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 11/11/2008 : 12:22:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hittman
But in a free market that is all self-correcting. |
Except many times before a market will "self-correct," people have to die. That's not acceptable to most sane, compassionate people. In a market without government regulation and safety standards, there is no incentive to manufacture anything except the cheapest product possible. What, the "market" will recognize an inferior product and stop buying it, you say? Nonsense. Not if the product is something essential, like meat or milk. Bad consumer reports can always be muffled with extensive PR campaigns. A bad product can always be relabeled and sold in new packaging. Businesses can get together and all agree on the same practices that help their bottom line, meaning that consumer choice which so essential to maintaining a free market evaporates. No, a totally free market is a fucking nightmare of epic proportions. It's been tried and it doesn't work. It's never worked. It never will work. I can't fathom why anyone would push for one.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 11/11/2008 12:23:22 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 11/12/2008 : 14:29:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Originally posted by Hittman
But in a free market that is all self-correcting. |
Except many times before a market will "self-correct," people have to die.
|
Suddnly I'm getting an image of Chinese children drinking milk...
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Hittman
Skeptic Friend
134 Posts |
Posted - 11/12/2008 : 17:17:22 [Permalink]
|
While I agree with everything you are saying, you are leaving out all the problems and limitations of a complete free market system (and I'm not just talking about "bad actors". Certain things which are highly valuable (though not monetarily) do poorly in such an economic system. For instance, how do we stop monopolies from forming?
|
Monopolies are usually created by the government directly (your local cable company) or indirectly (FCC rules make it virtually impossible to compete with Clear Channels.) In a free market, where anyone is allowed to challenge a monopoly, they are rare, or they don't last long. There are exceptions – Ticketmaster comes to mind – but they can be dealt with one at a time if necessary.
| Another example: health care. A free market system depends on customers being able to decide not to purchase a service – but when it comes to life or death, pain or relief, people will pay all they have, and be ruined in the process. Or they will simply not be able to pay, and suffer and/or die. |
With one exception, we don't have a free market for health care in the US. Half the medical bills in the country are paid by the government, the other half by insurance. There is no incentive to shop for the best value in health care. For instance, do you know what your doctor charges for an office visit? Me neither – I only know my co-pay.
The one exception is Lasik, which isn't covered by government or insurance. Since its introduction it's gone from $4k to $1.5K, and has improved dramatically as well. That's a direct example (and the only one I know of) of how the free market affects health care.
If there were a free market we would see prices go down and quality go up. And then the poor would be able to afford most procedures and medicines.
The best proposal I've heard for that is Health Savings Accounts, where people could accumulate tax-free health funds they could use to pay their own bills and buy insurance. When someone has four grand in the fund, they can buy insurance with a four grand deductible, which will be much cheaper than a policy that covers everything. And they'll have an incentive to spend their money more wisely.
I'll give you a personal example. My Dr. gave me a prescription to buy a glucose meter. I went to the drug store and they had them from $14 to $80. If I were buying it with my own money I would have bought that $40 one. It gave results in 15 seconds. The $80 one was identical, except it gave results in 5 seconds. Because the insurance company was paying for it I went with the most expensive one, even though the price was double for a trivial increase in functionality. If had had a Health Savings Account, where unspent money was going to earn interest (and be there later when I needed it) I would have spent $40 instead. And some people would have gone for the $14 model.
| A complete free market will tend to either disregard or exploit the poor because that is what quickly results in profit. |
Why? The free market will provide $14 meters because there will be a bigger market for them. They'll have more drugs in their price range, because they're a viable market.
| Also, many, including myself, are ethically repulsed by the idea of rich people being able to buy better treatment for illness than middle class and poor people. |
I understand that emotion. But it is an emotion, not a logical reaction. Rich people buy better food, homes, and trophy wives than the rest of us. It's not fair. But then, life has never been, and never will be fair, or we'd all be rich, good looking, happy and fulfilled.
| Another problem is that a free market system results in very rich individuals, and wealth equals power. These people gain incredibly power in society by no virtue other than their luck and prowess in business. |
Luck plays a small part in the picture. Prowess is more often the cause of wealth. And in the process of creating wealth for themselves, they create businesses and jobs that benefit others. I've never got a job from a poor person.
| Then these people can choose to invest their money in whatever they want, thus molding society to their own whims and desires, without any regard for what most people in the society want. |
And how do they do that? With government! If the government has lots of power, then the wealthy, who control it, will use, misuse, abuse and manipulate that power to their own ends. If the government had far less power, so would they. Case in point: The DMCA. 'Nother case in point: Bush's rewriting of the bankruptcy laws. Both were gifts to wealthy, powerful benefactors, to the determent of the rest of us.
| Also, as an artist who went to graduate school, I am well aware of the reality that a free market system tends to the lowest common denominator when it comes to art, literature, scientific research, history, philosophy, and other intellectual fields. The free market tends to what is obviously useful or trendy. It does not tend to that which makes people face uncomfortable realities or learning and creating for its own sake. |
So who decides who gets the funding for "worthwhile" projects? Government drones?
Any artist who has a benefactor is beholden to that benefactor. If that benefactor says they don't want to fund a crucifix in a jar of urine, then that is their right. An artist who wants to stay independent may very well have to take some menial job until his genius is recognized, and that's fine, especially considering that their genius is often self delusion.
| Many potential great intellectuals and artists would be unable to make a living at those trades and would end up low-level works in the service industry or other jobs they pay little and that they are ill-suited for. What a waste of human potential. |
Again, life isn't fair. But is it fair to take taxes from me, to force me to pay under threat of violence, to fund something I don't care about (or even know about)? And again, who makes that decision? I don't give a damn about opera, and I don't want to pay for it no matter how much someone else thinks it's worth. OTOH, at one time I was a big fan of folk music and devoted an enormous amount of time volunteering to keep venues for it open. But that was my choice, no one forced it on me. If you want to keep opera healthy, for example, devote your time and money to it, but don't force me to work for it.
| The question is how much freedom should be eliminated from the markets, not whether or not the markets should be free. They can't be. |
You're including fraud in your definition of a free market, while I consider fraud to be force, and therefore a legitimate reason for government involvement. I'm not sure we're really at odds here, except for semantics.
| No, a totally free market is a fucking nightmare of epic proportions. It's been tried and it doesn't work. It's never worked. It never will work. I can't fathom why anyone would push for one. |
Where and when as a totally free market been tried (on any massive scale, for any reasonable period of time)?
I started checking the origins of my food back when the Chinese killed pets and I won't buy anything from there. If I my kids were still little I wouldn't be buying their lead paint toys either. But in both cases we're dealing with massive fraud. In the case of food it's adding an adulterant so it tests for higher protein. The first time it happened they executed the guy responsible. I hope they do it to whoever is responsible for the latest fiasco as well.
|
When a vampire Jehovah's Witness knocks on your door, don't invite him in. Blood Witness: http://bloodwitness.com
Get Smartenized® with the Quick Hitts blog: http://www.davehitt.com/blog2/index.phpBlog |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 11/12/2008 : 17:46:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hittman
Where and when as a totally free market been tried (on any massive scale, for any reasonable period of time)? |
Oh, I see, a totally free market has never been tried. So I guess that means when you make claims like "In a free market, where anyone is allowed to challenge a monopoly, they are rare, or they don't last long" you are talking completely out of your ass, since you could have no possible idea how a totally free market would behave.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/12/2008 : 18:05:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hittman
| The question is how much freedom should be eliminated from the markets, not whether or not the markets should be free. They can't be. |
You're including fraud in your definition of a free market, while I consider fraud to be force, and therefore a legitimate reason for government involvement. |
No, I'm including fraud in my definition of "human nature." Markets not run by humans can be free, as numerous computer-simulated, idealized markets show. I have little doubt that if everyone acted with "enlightened self-interest" and with complete honesty, we could eliminate governance altogether. But humanity as a whole has shown little capacity for acting in such ways.| I'm not sure we're really at odds here, except for semantics. |
The problem isn't semantics, but presentation. You began with "government bad, free markets good," but such an un-nuanced position won't fly, so now you're presenting "government bad, except for when it's required to combat bad actors, free markets good for everything else."
That's the question. If the government essentially taking 19% of GDP is too much government, and 0% is too little, then what is the "correct" amount? Which laws should be eliminated, and which kept?
By the way, if all you know is your co-pay, you're acting with mind-numbing ignorance within the market. A phone call to your insurance provider would inform you as to how much your doctor gets per visit, and you certainly should know how much you're paying per month. Better deals for you (and your doctor) may exist.
Asserting your ignorance about your actions within the market does not make a compelling case in favor of free-market healthcare. Quite the opposite, actually, if your intent is to suggest that everyone is as uninformed as you are. If a large majority of people act as you do, then it's quite probable a good proportion of them are getting ripped off and it behooves society to have government step in and protect everyone from the rampant fraud. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
A proposition on propositions
