|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 07/01/2007 : 23:24:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marty
Getting back to the point for a minute, can man survive without a government? I saw that one person responded to this directly saying that without government, neighborhoods would ban together and those would ban together and so on and so forth until we have the current state of things.
Based on Locke's social contract theory, we need government to mediate our differences. However, Locke (nor do many others) touch on the specific roles and extent to which government oversees daily life. For instance, do humans need some sort of court system in which two people can bring their dispute to an impartial arbitrator? Of course, this type of construct has been around for thousands of years. On the other hand, do we need OSHA http://www.osha.gov/, NASA http://www.nasa.gov/, Department of Education http://www.ed.gov/index.jhtml ? |
I would say that both OSHA and the DOE exist in order to minimize the number of arbitration requests the court system gets. If you ensure workplace safety, then nobody gets hurt and sues the company. If you educate everyone to a certain standard, then there will be fewer arbitrations required due to disputes based upon ignorance. Neither is "necessary," but the primary alternative would be to increase the number of impartial public arbitrators. I think the money is better spent preventing disputes than arbitrating them.
NASA exists because our community thought that going into space had value, and that the best way to extract that value was to pool our money into a single endeavor. Whether those goals remain is open to debate. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 07/02/2007 : 03:40:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by marty
Getting back to the point for a minute, can man survive without a government? I saw that one person responded to this directly saying that without government, neighborhoods would ban together and those would ban together and so on and so forth until we have the current state of things.
Based on Locke's social contract theory, we need government to mediate our differences. However, Locke (nor do many others) touch on the specific roles and extent to which government oversees daily life. For instance, do humans need some sort of court system in which two people can bring their dispute to an impartial arbitrator? Of course, this type of construct has been around for thousands of years. On the other hand, do we need OSHA http://www.osha.gov/, NASA http://www.nasa.gov/, Department of Education http://www.ed.gov/index.jhtml ? |
I would say that both OSHA and the DOE exist in order to minimize the number of arbitration requests the court system gets. If you ensure workplace safety, then nobody gets hurt and sues the company. If you educate everyone to a certain standard, then there will be fewer arbitrations required due to disputes based upon ignorance. Neither is "necessary," but the primary alternative would be to increase the number of impartial public arbitrators. I think the money is better spent preventing disputes than arbitrating them.
NASA exists because our community thought that going into space had value, and that the best way to extract that value was to pool our money into a single endeavor. Whether those goals remain is open to debate.
|
Those monies are coming from different sources. I would rather the monies stay private as opposed to swirling in the bureaucracy in some vain attempt to save private interests money. Typical big government idea. Give me your money and I will save you money.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Should we have government?
