Topic: Bitcoin could bring about smaller governments - and that is a good thing (Read 3210 times)

It's a very simple metric .... (total tax take)/ GDP.

I can't see how people are getting hung up about how to measure the size of govt ... unless they want to of course.

The queston of large and small government is, at least for the non-zero government folks, a foggy concept. It is not good enough to speciffy a small government, for if a small government is better than a large government, an even smaller governement is better, and therefore no government at all is by extension the best. You have to be more specific.

There are three things government does: What nobody should do, what only governments can do and what either governments or private entities can do. The government obviously should stop doing what nobody should do, and government should leave that what private entities can do to those private entities. The reason is that the private entities are guided by rational self interest, and the government can not do better than that.

The status of a poor nation with government: poor.

The status of a poor nation without government: still poor.

The lack of government will not automatically turn dirt into gold.  All it does is come without the guarantee that government can fuck up a situation more than the situation was naturally fucked up before government involvement.  If the Somalians want a better life, they'll seek it, and I believe everyone always actively seeks this; they do not need to vote in a democratic election to have a representative hold office in a palace constructed by another man's labor so he can sit and make the decision as to whether or not the Somalians want a better life, or if he wants a much better life paid for with the former promise on a string.

A person can, and often does, quit his government.  It's called emmigration.  
You have to be attractive enough to the government u liek better, but that's open market, just make yourself presentable.  I did.
 

What made you assume that i do?  That's crazy talk.
Government is government, society is society, two distinctly different words with distinctly different meanings.
You're right to not confuse the two.  We're good  here.


In other words, u see no extant alternative?

But governments are unique in the use and concentration of power. There's no doubt corporations take on a government-like power structure but a person can quit a corporation, a person cannot quit their government.

Do you think government IS society? I don't.

Yeah, no. Developing economic models is tough. Getting a lot of data from different countries and finding the casual relationships (through government reports that are probably lies) could take a long time. It might be fun though.

I pointed out that governments are not unique in abuse and concentration of power, making the first sentence meaningless.  Historically, the workings of large corporations are similar to governments, and their use of power is also analogous -- from arguably evil (use of Pinkertons as private militias, company towns with usurious "company stores" and corporate-issued private currencies), to arguably socialistic and socially beneficial (Henry Ford's use of subsidized housing, child and medical care for his workers).


In that case the relationship between the brain and the stomach is also parasitic -- the brain produces nothing, relying on the stomach for its nourishment.  Seeing the government as a parasitic entity is myopic, the dichotomy between it and society is false.


In other words, no?

1. Yeah, but a lot of Marxist theory wasn't necessarily correct. Marx was right that the aristocracy was being replaced by industry. I think he was also right about his concept of ideology, that being certain classes determine what others think to exploit them. But Marx's solution was to inflate a central organization that redistributes profits from industry which is a phase of "brute communism". Marx said after "brute communism" there would be "absolute communism" which would consist of man as free from factory work and able to spend all his time pursuing his creative interests. The redistributing organization makes it's own ideology though, so his solution doesn't work. His labor theory of value in Das Kapital has been replaced by laws of scarcity in economics.

2. A lot of the government/populace relationship is parasitic. Every single cent that government takes in taxes originates somehow from people that actually make some good, or service the people that produce things. There is however problems with a lack of uniform law systems proposed by some anarchists, because if law isn't generally codified, personal protection agencies could get into a lot of conflict.

3. I think it would take a lot of studying to do that. Every government/economic relationship is different. It depends on GDP, private vs. public sector employment, the central bank's monetary policy and all the government interventions.

I think you're making an argument for quality over quantity, and I would agree, backdated to before my "Not how it went down throughout history" post (I could've made the point much less ambiguously, that's a fair criticism, even if I do say so myself  )

(see quote for ref. ^^^)

1. Marx would likely disagree

2. Are you suggesting that taxes should be interpreted as losses?  That the government/populace relationship is strictly parasitic, and tax money could be tossed in a bonfire, as far as economy is concerned?

3. Could you suggest an alternative?  A way to collect & interpret such data you feel would be provably more descriptive or factual?

Obligatory somalia reference http://www.peterleeson.com/better_off_stateless.pdf.

TLDR: Somalia's government was really shitty, in fact it was outright predatory, so when it collapsed Somalians' living conditions improved pretty significantly.

That doesn't really help with explaining whether we'd be better off (Western governments aren't nearly as bad).

True, Somalia did not get that way because it had a small government to begin with. However, looking at it now it is one of (if not the most) the worst places on Earth, and coincidentally it has no central government.

North Korea, which has the most powerful government of anywhere (over its people at least) also has a terrible economy.

That user was simply making the point that small governments are not always beneficial. There is more to an economy than the size of the government.

In fact, from the 25+ examples I've made it appears as though size of government is irrelevant, regardless of how you measure it.

Goverment size depends on several factors, not just the percentage of GDP it consumes. Economies with qualified human capital and technological advance will be able to sustain the government's siphoning of funds. The specific political institutions, such as democracy or dictatorship, don't determine size of government. It's indicative of government size but not conclusive.

Governments are only institutions that capitalize on the monopolization of force and everything that the government has was taken from producers and workers. Of course government size determines economic conditions because if governments take more through taxes or inflate the money supply it profits on everyone's lose. Every country's economic-government relationship is highly relative which makes model building difficult. If an economy is strong and has qualified human capital it'll persevere longer and could maintain growth. Plus, governments manipulate employment rates and economic growth figures to keep the populace pacified.

I wasn't talking about the history of government in Somalia, I was highlighting that "failed state" != "small government", it's not such an imaginative leap to glean that from my original comment. I don't think Somalia got that way because of a relentless pursuit of laissez faire capitalism, do you? That guy seemed to be making that statement, and it was blindingly ignorant.

For christ's sake, I asked you what you meant and you responded "small government, genius". I legitimately want to know what your point is. Just tell me.

You seem to think that you're actually addressing what I've said, about 4 times now. You went off on your own tangent, all 4 times. Complaints about being too lazy to read 2 pages pale into comparison with the plain inability to correctly interpret 4 sentences.

Look at my very first post in this thread. I named the top 25 countries in terms of growth and their type of government. That is as specific as it gets.

I don't see why I should have to repeat myself. If you can't be bothered to read the entire thread then you shouldn't respond asking for specifics. That is illogical.

In case you can't be bothered to read through a whopping two pages:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2945312

general history. assume generalities when specifics aren't given, it's logical

This is what you quoted:

"Somalia has a tiny government and is a great place to raise a family right?? As J603 pointed out this is a common trend. Sorry but "small government" is a broken term that imo usually just means "I want to do whatever I want and f*** everyone else"."

Historically what did not go down in this post? Let's go piece by piece.

"Somalia has a tiny government..." Happened/is happening.

"Great place to raise a family right"? Sarcasm.

"As J603 pointed out"... I did indeed point this out.

".. is a common trend." I'd say that historically this is true.

"Sorry but 'small government' is a broken term.. imo.. everyone else..." His opinion.

Everything in that quote went down historically in the way he described.

Are you saying that "small government" didn't go down "that way" historically? Which is what I asked you to clarify in the first place? Because it seems as though whether or not a government is small has nothing to do with the economy of a nation. Authoritarian governments can foster just as good an economy as states with no central government.

small government, genius

Not how what went down historically?