Topic: Maximum role of Government? - page 4. (Read 28705 times)

You seem to take the position that 'safety' in the workplace is an absolute.  That either a job is safe or it's not.  It doesn't work that way, and I'm sure that you wouldn't consider my job safe.  So whether or not a particular occupation is a 'safe working condition' or not isn't something that the government decides, the workers do.  It's still that way, no matter what the government agents will tell you.  If the job is too hazardous for the professionals to do it, the company is either going to offer enough of a risk premium to overcome the fear factor or take steps to make it safe enough that the professionals are willing to do the work.  The government regs on the matter still come later.  Do you know what the most dangerous, and highest paying skilled labor job in America is?  A high tension lineman.  These guys are paid on the order of $70+ per hour to be dropped by a cable from a helicopter onto a high tension power line, in order to inspect and repair it, while the power is still on.  They earn every penny, but can't get life insurance.  They aren't just near the power lines, they are actually sitting on them.  The voltage of a high tension transmission line is usually 14,400 volts or higher.

Really? All employees had safe working conditions before regulation? Or just the ones with a strong bargaining position?
The government saw something good and extended that to everyone. No, the market didn't "fix" employee safety. It granted the benefit of a safe working environment to a few people, the government "fixed" the rest.

Fail.  Employee safety and general conditions were 'fixed' long before regulation, mostly by the collective will of unions prior to the second world war.  The regulations came later, and at first simply enshrined the negotiated working condition rules into law; but then became perverted later.

Care to try again, or perhaps attempt to defend this point of view?

I don't think my ideology has a name, although I think it is a form of socialism:

-Wikipedia

My dream society would be one based on the goal of removing hierarchy in both economic and social affairs and giving value to every human being. Power comes from all people for all people.

The way this would be achieved is through decentralization, either through a confederal or federal democratic republic system. The rules of property would be as follows: your house, your food, your consumer items such as books, TVs, etc. but the means of production belong to the public, so the factories that build the TVs are the public's right.

However, monopolization of production would be discouraged, instead the means of production would be delegated to co-operative enterprises that compete against each other in a market. The reason for this being that the competition insures the best possible products, choice, more employment, and decentralization of power. The co-operatives give workers more power in their company, producing a more equitable income and there would be almost no regulation required because business decisions would be democratic among the workers of the company.

You could still start a new business, but by law it would have to be a co-operative once you start including other people. Anything that is required by function to be a monopoly, such as public services as firefighting, would be run democratically through the government (in the case of firefighting, very low on the [con]federal system.)

Government's functions would be divided among the different levels wherever it makes the most sense, and it's main functions would be defense, courts/justice, delegating the means of production, and running public services that cannot function in a market system correctly. The currency would be something like bitcoin (of course!), decentralized and under the people's control.

Employee safety regulation comes to mind.

Name one example of a market failure that was 'fixed' by regulation.  Just one.

Seeing how "the market" has been unable to fix a lot of things that regulation fixed rather quickly I'd say that some things the government does better. Perhaps this is one of those things. I'm a pragmatic person. Use whatever works.
I don't really see the market taking the lead in being green.

Come now, we do assume that they are rational beings? No one thinks government is efficient.

Or perhaps they feel that working through a political party is the most efficient way of getting things done?

It's more "hands off my shit" than "fuck you". Libertarians acknowledge and encourage charities as the way to handle social issues that government is used for now.

I don't understand. I mean all kinds of social responsibility, not just issues to do with shared resources but the whole "hands off my shit", "fuck you", selfish, antisocial attitude associated with libertarian political stances.

hard line libertarianism allows for social responsibility, and even encourages it, for renewable resources.

I personally think that if there was an ideal form of politics that worked well in all situations then we'd have found it already, the fact that we haven't is testament to how much of a non-trivial problem it is. Hard line stances are often childish views of a complex world, for example hard-line libertarianism completely lacks social responsibility, which is not a sensible nor practical way to run a society. Hard-line socialism tramples on personal liberty, which is also not sensible.

You've never actually suggested anything to replace any of my theories. If AnCap is so destructive, what do you suggest in its stead?

Try some constructive criticism for a change, eh?

I already have argued the points. It's not really in my interest to devote a lot of time to answering every little obfuscation and misdirection you care to apply. Read up, or don't. It's your choice. I'm beyond caring. You aren't going to change the world one way or the other. However, if you're interested in expanding your viewpoint, then you can read some of the books I've recommended. Or is it the case that the information and insights you gain from reading such material might muddy your vision?

How about you actually argue the points I'm supposed to glean from this 'education'. I know good info, and I know BS when I see it.

We already had this discussion. For about the tenth time, I'm going to point that I have provided some reading material for you. I would prefer to debate with someone who is a little more educated in real world issues and problems, rather than with someone who only chooses to argue about hypothetical untested scenarios without said education related to the real world issues and problems.

Scenario 1: I go to my neighbor and ask for money for a green initiative. He responds, "no I've got my own thing going on, don't need you." You walk away bummed, but that's life.
 
Scenario 2: I go to my neighbor and ask for money for a green initiative. He responds, "no I've got my own thing going on, don't need you." You threaten him with force (i.e. point of a gun). He gets pissed, goes in his house and comes out with a shotgun in hand. Doesn't matter what happens next, because this isn't going to end nicely.

Scenario 3: I vote for a politician to promote green initiatives, he signs a bill into law, hires a bunch of pencil pushers to create the taxes (or prints money) and hires IRS agents to "collect" it. No one asks anybody personally about money for a green initiative, the man can't respond and say no, because he doesn't know who to say no to. He pays his taxes, and goes his way. Grumbling no doubt.

Scenario 4: Repeat of 3 except the man knows that his taxes are diverted away from just causes ("green" initiatives being one of many). He decides to stand up for himself and refuses to pay his taxes until they (politicians and other agents of the government) extricate the "green" initiative tax from off of the law books. Everybody thinks he's a kook. The IRS won't stand for it, and they threaten financial doom. That doesn't work, he ignores them. The FBI comes in, surround the place and demands he come out. He refuses and get's his shotgun. Doesn't matter what happens next, because this isn't going to end nicely.

Sound familiar?

Theft is theft regardless if you get your agents to act on your behalf, or you do it personally. It results in the same outcome. Somebody's going to get hurt. The question isn't whether it's just. We all know the answer to that. The question is who's going to back down first. You with the shotgun, or them with the 2 dozen .50 caliber sniper rifles and 50 law enforcement agents knocking down your door.

You merely fear death, injury, or imprisonment greater than the taxes you unwillingly give in return.

With exception to the "language" myrkul is almost always right. His logic is almost infallible, but that's because the subject matter is easy to understand. Anybody else who believes they and their cadre of believers has any greater right to other peoples property is deluding themselves. You either think you're God, my nanny, my mother, or a thief. I don't care whether you call it government, the system, society, or any other concoction, what's mine is mine and what's yours is yours. LEAVE ME ALONE!

lol.. yes, Humans. People, like you (presumably), and me. If they feel that green projects are important, and popular enough that pushing them won't get them de-elected, then why don't they start a kickstarter, instead of a political party? Perhaps because there's more money for themselves in running a government than a charity?

Meat popsicles?