Topic: Knowledge check: If a government had only 2 functions,what would they be? (Read 3306 times)

Or how about:

1. F*** off

2. Die

More like means to those ends.
Charles Tilly distinguishes four activities performed by the State, as those "biological functions":
In a just world, only the third and fourth activities would be acceptable, and the fourth only voluntarily.

Let's not get lost in the details.  The two goals are:

(1) Endure
(2) Expand

In other words, a punctual rephrasing of "be fruitful and multiply."
Everything else (keeping peace, waging war, making and enforcing laws, providing social services etc., etc.) is an inevitable, but strictly incidental set of consequences.  Like defecating for living things: inevitable, but hardly raison d'etre.

Those goals have applied to everything, from molds to humankind, and persisted since (at least as far back as) the beginning of life.  The rest is sentimental fluff.  For those who like nifty quotes, here's one: "Consign it then to the flames: For it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion."*

*I remembered it as "For it is nothing but sophistry and illusion: Consign it to the flames", but Google set me straight

1. Waste time

2. Take up space

1. Be huge

2. Be idiotic

Why always the roads? I think the Statist paradigm has truly run it's course, as y'all come up with the same "argument" over and over.

Let's face it. Governments SUCK at building and maintaining roads. You would do better to find some justification for them in aggressive war, because killing and destroying is all they are good at.

I live in Western Pennsylvania, if being in PA can be called living. Given the highway budget they have, our roads should be aucking fwesome. Instead, they haven't bothered to fix 'em in two decades, except to throw a bit of asphault over the bodies...

Oh come now, you can't think of any other way to pay for roads than tolls or taxation?

Not a single one?


Good thing the market is more than just one person, and there are some pretty innovative thinkers out there. (The paint on the pothole patch reads "Re-freshed by KFC")

those are some beautiful words. if only magic spells could actually constrain the government.

1. Suck my C***

2. Kill themselves

Right i believe this is the strongest argument that can be made in favor of government (its sill wrong but it is the best wrong argument imo). What you are saying is that it can be used to solve problems of market failure. These are situations where individual rationality does not translate to group rationality. So imagine a soldier in a battle who calculates that if he abandons the battle it will only reduce his armies chance of victory by 0.1% but will increase his chance of survival from 50% to 99.9%. So he rationally calculates that he should leave the battle. However if everyone makes this same rational calculation than there is a 100% chance that every single one of them will die as the opposing army rampages across the land committing genocide. Supposedly government can be used to solve these sorts of problems.

unfortunately the problem with this idea is that government is even more effected by market failure problems than markets are. check out this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5maguX5x8c for a deeper explanation of how government is effected by market failure problems.

also remember that in a free market there would be incentives for entrepreneurs to solve market failure problems, there would potentially be a great amount of profit to be earned in doing so but so long as government is monopolizing the job of solving market failure problems entrepreneurs are crowded out of the market in solving market failure. So it isnt fair to say that just because an entrepreneur isnt solving x now that it wouldn't be solved by an entrepreneur in the free market.

To establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

Well...

I think we agree government is wasteful and inefficient. No argument there.

But if we're going to have an honest conversation I don't think a society can exist without some kind of coordinating body.

One example of what I was talking about is roads. No one person or enterprise can justify spending money maintaining urban roads. Highways, yes. You could build a toll road, but in the city many people use them and there has to be easy access on and off. No room for toll booths, etc. It's a public good. But no one person or business gets enough benefit from them to be willing to pay for their maintenance.

That's what I was thinking of.

Hmm...2 is a lot.

In other words, to waste money?

I agree with you that government is inefficient and largly ineffective, but (noting your response was tongue in cheek) I still think there is a role for government in coordinating activities that are not in any one person's interest and are not profitable enough to attract private enterprise.

What ever services they monopolized they would turn to shit, so what ever are the 2 least important things you can think of would be my answer. We could keep on some regulators to make sure that toothpick manufacturers are not manufacturing their toothpicks too sharp and maybe those guys who decide what shaped bottles are legal for wine producers to put wine in and what shaped bottles are illegal for wine producers to put wine in. (yes you can go to jail for putting wine in an incorrectly shaped bottle in the US  )

The smoke stack is probably a dead giveaway.

It could be traced. Just walk toward the higher concentrations.

Damage to whom? If most of them are doing it, and suffering damages from it, then they are suffering the damages from their own actions. If you're not doing it, and suffering damages from their actions, sue 'em.

Again, it could be traced. Just walk toward the higher concentrations.

If you know exactly which neighbour it is.
BTW: Another scenario would be something that dissipates very well in small quantities, but the effect is quite bad. Like some sort of poison leaking out.

OR... Some kind of pollution that is hard to detect where it comes from, and most neighbours are polluting small amounts that add up and does damage.

Or maybe some kind of pollution where it's hard to detect the source unless you are close, but someone far away does a lot of it, and his neighbours does not care or his land plot is large and the sources placed in a way that makes it hard to pinpoint the pollution without being at the private property. Not to mention that the pollutant is a part of unpolluted air, only in far less quantity.

And then you sue the shit out of him for damages.

Not sure if you get my point. The problem is not in splitting up the atmosphere into ownable chunks, it is to keep whatever you put into the atmosphere inside your dedicated chunk.

If your neighbour pollutes the hell out of his chunk, quite a bit of it will go your way (depending on wind direction etc.)

Eric Arthur Blair (George Orwell) would be proud.

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.

spy_on("wholecountry");
take_money("wholecountry");

Nobody. But it's a simple matter to split it up.

Cuius est solum eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos.

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".

(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.

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.

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.

So they should only interfere with violent citizens?

Where would the funds to do so come from?

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.

Stop people using Bitcoins......

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).

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.

ha ha. Exactly! Well said.

You know how to fix the tragedy of the commons, right?

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. 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.

+1

I like this answer because it's both funny and true.

To protect and serve.

1. Gain legal ownership over everything in the universe.
2. Play God.

1. Tell the people what they are scared of
2. Tell the people what kind of food they can eat

The correct answer is:
1. National defense
2. Create/enforce laws

I looked it up on Google.

1. Remove the revenue raising sectors of the economy to Asia             
2. Borrow money at an exponential rate

1. Tax
2. Death

*1*
Thank you for choosing Trade. Just bring your shipment into one of our conveniently located ports, and our representatives will be glad to assist you.

*2*
We're sorry to hear that you've decided to declare war on us. Please record a message after the beep, which will be broadcast to all our militias. Please be advised that some of them do have rather advanced weaponry. *BEEP*

*3*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLDKnWi2hNA

 

Or else a proper open integration into society where no information is hidden and the public are included in all decision making processes.

1. Ensure all necessary resources (food, water, shelter, etc) for all publlic are available
2. Ensure necessary services ( hospital, police, etc) for all public are available

I think division of powers is a very important concept that has to be protected by all means.

Hm, if you put it that way, it sounds like a job a answering machine could do:

+1

1) Ask for forgiveness.
2) Disband.

• Preserve the anthem.
• Preserve the flag.

Ideally in a museum funded by donations.

Indeed. In fact, there's solid evidence that military force is not a natural monopoly. Even in cases where a professional military is desired, bureaucratic concerns limit it's "optimal" size below that of a national force, even below that of some smaller markets.

This is a good point, but what purpose would a diplomat serve? I mean, foreign policy could be summed up in a press release: "We'll trade with anyone who comes in peace, and woe betide any who come in war."

I also think the first is courts. Basically only acting as neutral and deciding Party when there are disputes between citizens / companies in this country or other countries.

I'm not so sure about the military. Community Militias can form sufficient means for defense. Wealth People and companies could pay for the equipment while every citizens agrees to defend the country if attacked.

I would say the second is diplomacy. As long as there are other Governments. The free nation would need to be represented towards them through a single entity.

Yeah, that's my vote too. Essentially:
1. Police/military (they're pretty much the same thing, especially if the military is used only defensively)
2. Courts

The thing is, monopoly power distorts even these two essential functions. In brief, when the government is the law, they are above the law. Market forces can take care of everything, and there is no need for a monopoly on those services.

1. Pee into the wind
2. Shit on everything

1. Imperialize
2. Misinform

Pretty sure that's indeed the correct answer: (1) national defense and (2) rule of law.

Take the word "sexual" out of that and you have an essential role of government.  It enforces norms of behaviour and its enforcement action creates a benchmark that people treat as a kind of morality.  

1. Expand
2. Control

1. ) Leave peaceful citizens the hell alone.

2. ) See 1.

1. Fleece everybody so as to have enough money to bribe the desperate to not revolt.
2. Spy on you.

How about this: to provide the benchmark of sexual deviancy??

I can think of 3, it's hard to cut down to 2:

1 - National defence against foreign invasion and other military threats
2 - Protection of human rights (don't laugh)
3 - Enforcement of contracts

The invisible hand was a reference used a lot by Adam Smith, the Father of modern economics.

As for the 2 roles of government, one is the security of the land from outside forces, the other is the enforcer of law inside the country.

Really, its just about enforcing and protecting property rights and nothing much else.

All other elements of society can be provided by a third party. Road infrastructure, health, education and welfare don't have to be done by government, although many people couldn't imagine a world where they weren't!

These two are basically the same, it's about security.

My answer:

1. Whatever related to security, includying police, army, tribunals, jails...
2. All the basic road infrastructures.

1. Protection of private property, specifically threat to private property from coercion or fraud.

2. Protection of individual liberty from violent coercion.

1) to be as small as possible

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!