Discussionator -

Opinion

"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." Claude Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850)
– DigitalBoss, 2009-09-08 at 13:40:34 (20 comments)

	On 2009-09-08 at 13:42:54, DigitalBoss wrote... "Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain." Claude Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850).
	On 2009-09-08 at 13:43:43, DigitalBoss wrote... Claude Bastiat, sounds like a pretty smart guy.
	On 2009-09-08 at 16:20:43, Lee J Haywood wrote... There's something to be said for trying both approaches - have the government do it their way, and let private organisations do it theirs. Whichever works best for all wins out, when assessed independently.
	On 2009-09-08 at 17:26:32, DigitalBoss wrote... I like the "great fiction" part.
	On 2009-09-09 at 01:52:57, BorgClown wrote... I've noticed it doesn't says "except libertarian government". It's including every form of government, so the only one left is anarchy, which could work too, given the right times.
	On 2009-09-09 at 01:55:11, BorgClown wrote... I'd like better a "every politician endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else".
	On 2009-09-09 at 12:44:27, DigitalBoss wrote... RIGHT! All forms of government, and that includes Libertarian. That is why the government should be kept as small as possible.
	On 2009-09-09 at 12:45:57, DigitalBoss wrote... There is nothing to be said for trying the government approach, it just does not work as well as the free market.
	On 2009-09-10 at 02:37:18, BorgClown wrote... Raw free market sucks, it needs balance. It's like playing an online war game where the other players already have bazookas and snipper rifles, while you only have a knife. You have a chance at winning, just not a very good one.
	On 2009-09-10 at 15:02:07, Baslisks wrote... I would be happy with a smaller government if the corporations were released of their personhood. Until then I won't give them an inch.
	On 2009-09-12 at 06:12:56, DigitalBoss wrote... Raw free market ROCKS! It is the only way to go. Every time a transaction takes place, each party to the transaction makes decisions based on hundreds or thousands of factors. To buy, or not to buy? Can I afford it? If I sell, what is the price I should charge? Can I replace my stock? ... This are no politicians that are smart enough to second-guess these market forces. Every time they create law or a subsidy that they think is going to do some good for their constituents, someone realizes unintended consequences. It just does not work.
	On 2009-09-12 at 15:55:11, Thelevellers wrote... So, lets say your parents abandon you, at say 16, cause they are drug-addicted-no-good-losers, You are penniless and left to roam the street. Seeing as most people will ignore you, as they will just see a no good homeless type, and at 16 you may well look older, especially if you are living on the street, so you don't get the 'poor child' vote. Where does the free market help them? No money = no interaction in the market.
	On 2009-09-12 at 16:52:26, Baslisks wrote... @DigitalBoss: give me free market give me anarchy. I want to really be free. I want a cold hard gun with my cold hard barter. Let me really be free then.
	On 2009-09-12 at 18:15:39, BorgClown wrote... @Thelevellers: I guess that person would resort to begging, or stealing, and after that he has them monies.
	On 2009-09-12 at 18:24:08, BorgClown wrote... I think raw free-market could work, but only if education and culture get DRASTICALLY overhauled. You can't deny that most people do not know how to make sensible decisions, and most do not know how to leverage their power as a group of consumer-citizens. As hierarchical apes, we have instincts and atavisms that make it easy for individuals to manipulate large groups without offering them real benefits for their participation. that is, to exploit them. Give me a populace of smart and educated people and until then I'll take raw free market happily.
	On 2009-09-12 at 22:17:13, Thelevellers wrote... How do you maintain a society of smart people in a free market, however? Ok, I suppose if you succeed in making a sopciety of ALL smat enough people to know the value of education then it would work, but as soon as one family slips it's likely to be a downward trend from there... I'm just not that convinced by free markets - there are far too many arseholes in the world...
	On 2009-09-13 at 01:01:31, BorgClown wrote... I hope society would pressure you to at least try to be smart. Even small children should mock other children (and grown ups acting as children) for willfully dumbing down and intellectual lazyness.
	On 2009-09-13 at 01:44:53, DigitalBoss wrote... @TheLevel: It is up to you and your personal responsibility to desire and obtain an education, make wise decisions, or fail and learn by failing. Learning by making mistakes is universal. As for your 16 year old left on the street, I firmly believe in charity and philanthropy. Do you know what they are? Where is the personal responsibly of the parents? What I hate in America's youth today is this "cool to be stupid" mentality.
	On 2009-09-13 at 06:25:27, Baslisks wrote... @DigitalBoss: you can gain a lot of power slinging a gun around. That doesn't take brilliance.
	On 2009-09-13 at 09:34:45, Thelevellers wrote... My point was that charity would probably skip them, as a lot of people ignore homeless people, and charities can only do so much, their respurces aren't infinite. My point with the parents is that some people are useless (and in my view shouldn't be allowed to have kids, but that's another topic), so what about their children, who don't get a chance to make a good choice? There are circumstances where outside help is required, and government in theory can do a lot to help there. (I know they aren;t perfect either in that respect, but at least they have the funding to do more than most/all charities). As for charity and philanthropy, I have been donating to charity for the past year, despite having very little in the way of fixed income, and once my paychecks start arriving for my new job I have a couple more charities I'm thinking about adding to the list. Philanthropy wise I think I could do more - I will confess that I am someone who often ignores homeless people, but I try when I feel I have the money.