spy_on("wholecountry");
take_money("wholecountry");
take_money("wholecountry");
Eric Arthur Blair (George Orwell) would be proud.
Topic: Knowledge check: If a government had only 2 functions,what would they be? - page 2. (Read 3305 times)
May 17, 2013, 04:56:24 PM
Eric Arthur Blair (George Orwell) would be proud.
May 17, 2013, 01:37:35 PM
Well, I'm a libertarian, and have long since crossed the border. I am most assuredly an anarchist.
According to Ayn Rand the only legitimate purposes of government are to protect from without (defensively!!!) and to protect the rights of property and contract. Don't know if that's what you're looking for.
However, if we are to go with the specific wording of your post title, my answer would be based on history and what governments actually do.
1. Establish the perception of legitimacy.
2. Fuck everyone.
When Jefferson said that government is a necessary evil, it is my considered opinion that he was dead wrong. Evil is NOT necessary, even though ever present. Giving it allegiance and power is IN ITSELF an evil act, and should be avoided. Mao was correct. All political power proceeds from the barrel of a gun.
According to Ayn Rand the only legitimate purposes of government are to protect from without (defensively!!!) and to protect the rights of property and contract. Don't know if that's what you're looking for.
However, if we are to go with the specific wording of your post title, my answer would be based on history and what governments actually do.
1. Establish the perception of legitimacy.
2. Fuck everyone.
When Jefferson said that government is a necessary evil, it is my considered opinion that he was dead wrong. Evil is NOT necessary, even though ever present. Giving it allegiance and power is IN ITSELF an evil act, and should be avoided. Mao was correct. All political power proceeds from the barrel of a gun.
May 17, 2013, 10:36:35 AM
spy_on("wholecountry");
take_money("wholecountry");
take_money("wholecountry");
May 17, 2013, 10:33:48 AM
People love to talk about market forces solving all problems, but protecting the environment is something that market forces do a very poor job at protecting. See global warming on a global scale, or overfishing, it's the economic principle of externalities - also referred to as "the tragedy of the commons".
You know how to fix the tragedy of the commons, right?Well, my memory of economics tells me that the way of fixing the tragedy of the commons would be to build the externalities into the price of whatever is being sold. In other words, if you were to use gasoline as an example, put a large tax on it to account for the fact that it contributes to global warming. Over the long run, this will result in a situation where people will drive less, and use smaller cars, thus use less gas.
So, in this case, the solution is government intervention. The same idea would apply for many other cases of tragedy of the commons, ie: some species is being overfished? Declare an area off limits for fishing for a set period of time. So on and so forth. I like minimalism in government, but environmental protections like these are regulations that I fully support.
That's a common approach, halfawake, but not the textbook solution. The simple sollution to a "tragedy of the commons" is to privatize the common. That is, give it to someone. This will result in the resource being allocated to its most efficient use (see Coase Theorem).
Lol - so who should own the whole atmosphere?
Cuius est solum eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos.
May 17, 2013, 08:49:20 AM
(Not wanting this tread to become a GW tread, but still..)
The heat dissipates into space just like the other 99.9% or so of the energy from the sun.
Heat produced by humans have just local effects, the heat will soon radiate away.
Have you ever noticed that a night with clear skies is colder than one where there are clouds? That is because the clouds work like insulation and traps the heat.
(On a cloudy day it's the opposite)
Every day the earth receives enormous quantities of heat from the sun, if not almost all of it went back into space, the earth would be boiling.
The question about global warming is weather a little more insulation is added to the earth or not. It's not about human-produced heat.
Nature intended things that burn to be burnt. A cloud also introduces a libido (white reflectivity) that repels solar heat during the day. Global warming (night and day) is about unnaturally added excess-heat from our (soullessly bestial destructive-anthropogenic) destructive perversions of nature here. (like the destructive and eternally toxic waste-byproducts of pointless thermonuclear-communist Bohemian Grove terrorism)
If fail to see how anyone could excuse a thousand new honorless-war-communist-made "suns" on the surface of our world as anything "natural".
May 17, 2013, 08:26:06 AM
People love to talk about market forces solving all problems, but protecting the environment is something that market forces do a very poor job at protecting. See global warming on a global scale, or overfishing, it's the economic principle of externalities - also referred to as "the tragedy of the commons".
You know how to fix the tragedy of the commons, right?Well, my memory of economics tells me that the way of fixing the tragedy of the commons would be to build the externalities into the price of whatever is being sold. In other words, if you were to use gasoline as an example, put a large tax on it to account for the fact that it contributes to global warming. Over the long run, this will result in a situation where people will drive less, and use smaller cars, thus use less gas.
So, in this case, the solution is government intervention. The same idea would apply for many other cases of tragedy of the commons, ie: some species is being overfished? Declare an area off limits for fishing for a set period of time. So on and so forth. I like minimalism in government, but environmental protections like these are regulations that I fully support.
In fact thermonuclear communism is the #1 cause of global warming, not fossil fuel burning. Nuclear reactors dissipate millions of terawatts of completely wasted heat as direct thermal pollution into waterways and seas as do their dangerous eternally-decaying new, used and spent fuel rods. In fact if stored nuclear fuel bundles were to be "racked" within simple, foolproof electrical thermocouples they alone would function as their own nuclear batteries to uninterruptedly power their own stupid water pumps to pollute the earth with the remainder of their wasted heat. This would make external batteries, power or generators to "cool fuel pools" unnecessary and redundant and would have prevented Fukushima. (and a thousand more of them to come)
But, of course, Tory-Trotskyite Federal Reserve private boardroom-socialist communism, dictates that their handsomely-profiting elite foxes always "regulate" our hen-houses.... (while we all face and pay them dearly for the consequences)
(Not wanting this tread to become a GW tread, but still..)
The heat dissipates into space just like the other 99.9% or so of the energy from the sun.
Heat produced by humans have just local effects, the heat will soon radiate away.
Have you ever noticed that a night with clear skies is colder than one where there are clouds? That is because the clouds work like insulation and traps the heat.
(On a cloudy day it's the opposite)
Every day the earth receives enormous quantities of heat from the sun, if not almost all of it went back into space, the earth would be boiling.
The question about global warming is weather a little more insulation is added to the earth or not. It's not about human-produced heat.
May 17, 2013, 08:05:44 AM
People love to talk about market forces solving all problems, but protecting the environment is something that market forces do a very poor job at protecting. See global warming on a global scale, or overfishing, it's the economic principle of externalities - also referred to as "the tragedy of the commons".
You know how to fix the tragedy of the commons, right?Well, my memory of economics tells me that the way of fixing the tragedy of the commons would be to build the externalities into the price of whatever is being sold. In other words, if you were to use gasoline as an example, put a large tax on it to account for the fact that it contributes to global warming. Over the long run, this will result in a situation where people will drive less, and use smaller cars, thus use less gas.
So, in this case, the solution is government intervention. The same idea would apply for many other cases of tragedy of the commons, ie: some species is being overfished? Declare an area off limits for fishing for a set period of time. So on and so forth. I like minimalism in government, but environmental protections like these are regulations that I fully support.
In fact thermonuclear communism is the #1 cause of global warming, not fossil fuel burning that produces CO2 that plants need to breathe to produce oxygen for us. Nuclear reactors dissipate millions of terawatts of completely wasted heat as direct thermal pollution into waterways and seas as do their dangerous eternally-decaying new, used and spent fuel rods. In fact if stored nuclear fuel bundles were to be "racked" within simple, foolproof electrical thermocouples they alone would function as their own nuclear batteries to uninterruptedly power their own stupid water pumps to pollute the earth with the remainder of their wasted heat. This would make external batteries, power or generators to "cool fuel pools" unnecessary and redundant and would have prevented Fukushima. (and a thousand more of them to come)
But, of course, Tory-Trotskyite Federal Reserve private boardroom-socialist communism, dictates that their handsomely-profiting elite foxes always "regulate" our hen-houses.... (while we all face and pay them dearly for the consequences)
All "government" is "socialism". The two words mean the same thing. The more of one you have, the more of the other you end up with.
May 17, 2013, 07:14:34 AM
People love to talk about market forces solving all problems, but protecting the environment is something that market forces do a very poor job at protecting. See global warming on a global scale, or overfishing, it's the economic principle of externalities - also referred to as "the tragedy of the commons".
You know how to fix the tragedy of the commons, right?Well, my memory of economics tells me that the way of fixing the tragedy of the commons would be to build the externalities into the price of whatever is being sold. In other words, if you were to use gasoline as an example, put a large tax on it to account for the fact that it contributes to global warming. Over the long run, this will result in a situation where people will drive less, and use smaller cars, thus use less gas.
So, in this case, the solution is government intervention. The same idea would apply for many other cases of tragedy of the commons, ie: some species is being overfished? Declare an area off limits for fishing for a set period of time. So on and so forth. I like minimalism in government, but environmental protections like these are regulations that I fully support.
That's a common approach, halfawake, but not the textbook solution. The simple sollution to a "tragedy of the commons" is to privatize the common. That is, give it to someone. This will result in the resource being allocated to its most efficient use (see Coase Theorem).
Lol - so who should own the whole atmosphere?
If you put something in the air like you just don't care, it will either drop straight down or float for some distance. The dropping stuff is your own problem, and so is what only drifts for a small distance. But there is a whole lot of "stuff" that can drift for years.
I live in Norway, and when Chernobyl blew up, we had to throw away a lot of reindeer/sheep/fish etc. due to radiation. What is done in point A can have an effect on point B and even C,D,E etc.
May 17, 2013, 07:02:45 AM
1. ) Leave peaceful citizens the hell alone.
2. ) See 1.
2. ) See 1.
So they should only interfere with violent citizens?
Where would the funds to do so come from?
May 17, 2013, 06:54:59 AM
1: Preserve, protect and defend the Constitution without any reservation nor purpose of evasion.
2: To hear and vet all proposals to make, repeal, amend and enforce valid laws and declarations and to provide for the best conduct of the duties that they require.
2: To hear and vet all proposals to make, repeal, amend and enforce valid laws and declarations and to provide for the best conduct of the duties that they require.
May 17, 2013, 06:19:09 AM
Stop people using Bitcoins......
May 17, 2013, 05:11:15 AM
People love to talk about market forces solving all problems, but protecting the environment is something that market forces do a very poor job at protecting. See global warming on a global scale, or overfishing, it's the economic principle of externalities - also referred to as "the tragedy of the commons".
You know how to fix the tragedy of the commons, right?Well, my memory of economics tells me that the way of fixing the tragedy of the commons would be to build the externalities into the price of whatever is being sold. In other words, if you were to use gasoline as an example, put a large tax on it to account for the fact that it contributes to global warming. Over the long run, this will result in a situation where people will drive less, and use smaller cars, thus use less gas.
So, in this case, the solution is government intervention. The same idea would apply for many other cases of tragedy of the commons, ie: some species is being overfished? Declare an area off limits for fishing for a set period of time. So on and so forth. I like minimalism in government, but environmental protections like these are regulations that I fully support.
That's a common approach, halfawake, but not the textbook solution. The simple sollution to a "tragedy of the commons" is to privatize the common. That is, give it to someone. This will result in the resource being allocated to its most efficient use (see Coase Theorem).
May 17, 2013, 03:18:52 AM
People love to talk about market forces solving all problems, but protecting the environment is something that market forces do a very poor job at protecting. See global warming on a global scale, or overfishing, it's the economic principle of externalities - also referred to as "the tragedy of the commons".
You know how to fix the tragedy of the commons, right?Well, my memory of economics tells me that the way of fixing the tragedy of the commons would be to build the externalities into the price of whatever is being sold. In other words, if you were to use gasoline as an example, put a large tax on it to account for the fact that it contributes to global warming. Over the long run, this will result in a situation where people will drive less, and use smaller cars, thus use less gas.
So, in this case, the solution is government intervention. The same idea would apply for many other cases of tragedy of the commons, ie: some species is being overfished? Declare an area off limits for fishing for a set period of time. So on and so forth. I like minimalism in government, but environmental protections like these are regulations that I fully support.
May 17, 2013, 01:02:08 AM
People love to talk about market forces solving all problems, but protecting the environment is something that market forces do a very poor job at protecting. See global warming on a global scale, or overfishing, it's the economic principle of externalities - also referred to as "the tragedy of the commons".
You know how to fix the tragedy of the commons, right?ha ha. Exactly! Well said.
May 17, 2013, 12:39:52 AM
People love to talk about market forces solving all problems, but protecting the environment is something that market forces do a very poor job at protecting. See global warming on a global scale, or overfishing, it's the economic principle of externalities - also referred to as "the tragedy of the commons".
You know how to fix the tragedy of the commons, right? May 17, 2013, 12:27:44 AM
If I had to pick only two functions for the government to do, I'd pick protection for both.
1) Police protection from each other: gangs, etc.
2) Protection of the environment.
People love to talk about market forces solving all problems, but protecting the environment is something that market forces do a very poor job at protecting. See global warming on a global scale, or overfishing, it's the economic principle of externalities - also referred to as "the tragedy of the commons".
1) Police protection from each other: gangs, etc.
2) Protection of the environment.
People love to talk about market forces solving all problems, but protecting the environment is something that market forces do a very poor job at protecting. See global warming on a global scale, or overfishing, it's the economic principle of externalities - also referred to as "the tragedy of the commons".
May 16, 2013, 10:27:45 PM
1. Taking out the garbage and related community services including roads & bridges, power grid, schools - debatable whether this extends to keeping the economy on a robust growth path, mainly because of the additional powers needed for that, and the potential for abuse of those powers.
2. Enforcing rules. Internally stopping people from theft, assault, etc. Externally stopping threats from other governments, although if ALL governments had only 2 functions and stayed limited to them, the external issues would be smaller.
2. Enforcing rules. Internally stopping people from theft, assault, etc. Externally stopping threats from other governments, although if ALL governments had only 2 functions and stayed limited to them, the external issues would be smaller.
May 16, 2013, 07:43:22 AM
1. Tell the people what they are scared of
2. Tell the people what kind of food they can eat
2. Tell the people what kind of food they can eat
+1
I like this answer because it's both funny and true.
May 16, 2013, 06:55:36 AM
First of all, there is technically a "right"answer. That is, according to a highly-knowledgeable economist (Oxford/Cambridge). I wish I remembered his name, I REALLY do. He said he was an all-out libertarian, bordering on anarchist (he lol'd). I am also a Libertarian (maybe not as fanatic as him, but I am one) so I liked listening to him.
One thing he said has been on my mind for close to a week now. He said that we as a nation would thrive and be most free if our government only had 2 functions. The invisible hand, he said would take care of the rest.
So what do you guys think? I don't think he's crazy. Either way, post what you think those 2 functions are and later I'll reveal the answer (again, according to him).
Lets have a FUN (no computer screen drama) debate over politics and whatever else this brings up!
One thing he said has been on my mind for close to a week now. He said that we as a nation would thrive and be most free if our government only had 2 functions. The invisible hand, he said would take care of the rest.
So what do you guys think? I don't think he's crazy. Either way, post what you think those 2 functions are and later I'll reveal the answer (again, according to him).
Lets have a FUN (no computer screen drama) debate over politics and whatever else this brings up!
To protect and serve.
May 16, 2013, 06:53:03 AM
1. Gain legal ownership over everything in the universe.
2. Play God.
2. Play God.
Jump to: