Conquer Club

All this talk of small government has me wondering how small most people really want their government to be. So the poll above will hopefully give us some sort of idea. You can vote for all of the above or none of them. If you go for the "something else" option please state what it is that doesn't fit into one of these categories that should be paid for by taxes and provided by government.

For clarification, this means TOTAL taxes and ALL levels of government, from your local town council right up to the fat cats in the national capital. Because there are so many differences internationally between structures in different countries, it would be pointless trying to split the debate into "local", "regional" and "national" levels.

Also, private contractors paid for by the government working on government contracts count for this poll.

For clarification, this means TOTAL taxes and ALL levels of government, from your local town council right up to the fat cats in the national capital. Because there are so many differences internationally between structures in different countries, it would be pointless trying to split the debate into "local", "regional" and "national" levels.

Actually, that doesn't clarify anything; it obfuscates by rejecting a primary possibility from Limited Government. Most classical liberals (pro limited government types) refer mainly to national governments. State governments would relatively gain some role--as well as municipalities--relative to the loss in scope of the national government. The distinction matters because the degrees of efficiency in overcoming knowledge and incentive problems differ at various political levels.

I voted for international security and highways, but there's some caveats. Energy prices and industry need not be controlled by government.

Ultimately, the problem is that democratic government, generally understood, will always remain conducive to concentrating the benefits for the more politically organized groups (lobbyism, cronyism--from businesses, unions, elderly, etc.) while dispersing the costs on the less politically organized (generally, the poor, the apathetic, the unrepresented future generations--think: long-term costs of deficit spending).

The main problem is ultimately one of education, in that people overestimate the abilities of central planning while underestimating the abilities of freer markets coupled with freer civil societies (which necessitates a loss of control from politics). Most voters are uninformed in that they don't understand how the political process works, and even if they do, so long as 'they get theirs', then they don't care enough to change their habits (theft can be profitable after all).

about 6 inches

assuming the government is at the Federal level, I could only vote for Military and roads

At the state level I would include parks and police/fire and maybe a few others, but really that's up to the voters of said state to decide for themselves

for better or worse, we need worldwide governance

khazalid wrote:for better or worse, we need worldwide governance

Why?

khazalid wrote:for better or worse, we need worldwide governance

We need worldwide order/governance, but it need not come from one government. Don't you agree?

Troubles me a little bit that twice the number of people have voted for international security than for education for under 18s...

You know even Friedmen advocates for government supported education at that level right? (in the form of a voucher system).

This is why we cannot have nice things...

Lootifer wrote:Troubles me a little bit that twice the number of people have voted for international security than for education for under 18s...

Why?

For education, I think the more local the better.

Phatscotty wrote:

Lootifer wrote:Troubles me a little bit that twice the number of people have voted for international security than for education for under 18s...

Why?

For education, I think the more local the better.

Local government is still government as defined in the OP.

chang50 wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Lootifer wrote:Troubles me a little bit that twice the number of people have voted for international security than for education for under 18s...

Why?

For education, I think the more local the better.

Local government is still government as defined in the OP.

Oh yeh, I should have been going by his rules (srys), but still, I don't want the federal government in education, but I do want the state and local government in education, so it's worth pointing out.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Ultimately, the problem is that democratic government, generally understood, will always remain conducive to concentrating the benefits for the more politically organized groups (lobbyism, cronyism--from businesses, unions, elderly, etc.) while dispersing the costs on the less politically organized (generally, the poor, the apathetic, the unrepresented future generations--think: long-term costs of deficit spending).

Democracy is still better than all of the other systems because weakly regulated economies are susceptible to tyranny from a dictator coming in to 'save' people from the economy (cf. 1930s Germany).

Phatscotty wrote:

chang50 wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Lootifer wrote:Troubles me a little bit that twice the number of people have voted for international security than for education for under 18s...

Why?

For education, I think the more local the better.

Local government is still government as defined in the OP.

Oh yeh, I should have been going by his rules (srys), but still, I don't want the federal government in education, but I do want the state and local government in education, so it's worth pointing out.

Is it practical to totally remove central government from education?I'm thinking of funding in particular?

We were top notch without it, and every year education gets more and more funding, Obama even doubled the dept of Education budget in a single biannum (2009-10) and the results are little changed to worse.

The Feds with all that funding just inflates everything. Different strokes for different folks.

Metsfanmax wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Ultimately, the problem is that democratic government, generally understood, will always remain conducive to concentrating the benefits for the more politically organized groups (lobbyism, cronyism--from businesses, unions, elderly, etc.) while dispersing the costs on the less politically organized (generally, the poor, the apathetic, the unrepresented future generations--think: long-term costs of deficit spending).

Democracy is still better than all of the other systems because weakly regulated economies are susceptible to tyranny from a dictator coming in to 'save' people from the economy (cf. 1930s Germany).

If this was true, then the relatively weakly regulated economies of past US, UK, and on would--as you imply--turn into Nazi Germanies. This simply isn't the case because susceptibility to tyranny from a dictator is not mono-causal (e.g. your model of regulation --> tyrannical susceptibility).

Instead, there's more factors. There's also a good case that public policies from the victors of WW1 imposed economic constraints on the Germany of the Weimar Republic which further undermined its political cohesiveness. There's also many regulatory policies and certain political attitudes of the Weimer Republic which inadvertently weakened the government's control.

For example, (1) consider the political parties post 1919:

Composition of the Vote for the National Assembly in Germany in January 1919
Political Party___Acronym___Orientation___Proportion of Vote
Social Democratic Party of Germany SPD Socialist 38%
German Democratic Party DDP Socialist 38%
Center Party DDP Centrist
German National People's Party DNVP Conservative Nationalist 10%
German People's Party DVP Conservative Nationalist
Independent Social Democratic
Party of Germany ISPD Socialist 8%
Other Parties 6%


Socialist policies (in the form of economic regulation) did not help the Weimar Republic's viability. In fact, socialist parties are typically eager to regulate many aspects of the economy.


(2) Recall post-WW1 Germany's loss of land and resources after its borders were rearranged. This does not help stabilize an economy.

(1) and (2) are gleaned from Professor Watkins short history of 20th century Germany.
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/germany.htm

(3) Then, consider the Weimar Republic's economic regulation through its central bank--which caused the hyperinflation that destabilized its economy and destroyed much wealth of the Germans.


So, no, your explanation is wrong and points in the opposite direction, and there are many other dangers and costs of increasingly controlling an economy (tyranny of the majority, greater rewards for crony capitalism, loss of autonomy, and so on).

If you wish to debate about the Weimar Republic, then please make a new thread.

Lootifer wrote:Troubles me a little bit that twice the number of people have voted for international security than for education for under 18s...

You know even Friedmen advocates for government supported education at that level right? (in the form of a voucher system).

This is why we cannot have nice things...

National defense poses a public goods problem; education does not.

And the poll implies not simply a matter of spending but also of control because these two always come hand-in-hand. Reducing barriers for producing education--in its many different forms like schools or work, decreases the costs of producing education. Regulation imposes the opposite effect (while also imposing additional costs due its own incompetence and other incentive and knowledge problems).

Imagine making decisions without prices; this is what you get with centrally planned organization--whose primary reason for averting complete chaos and failure is primarily due to its reliance on market-provided prices.

So what would happen if the government were to cease to be involved in waste management and environmental protection? Where is your trash and sewage going to go? Who is going to keep your air clean?

Does anyone prevent monopolies from forming in this vision of minimal government?

BigBallinStalin wrote:

khazalid wrote:for better or worse, we need worldwide governance

We need worldwide order/governance, but it need not come from one government. Don't you agree?

No. One world - one government.

Of course, it will almost certainly not happen in any of our lifetimes, but that doesn't make it any less necessary.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Ultimately, the problem is that democratic government, generally understood, will always remain conducive to concentrating the benefits for the more politically organized groups (lobbyism, cronyism--from businesses, unions, elderly, etc.) while dispersing the costs on the less politically organized (generally, the poor, the apathetic, the unrepresented future generations--think: long-term costs of deficit spending).

Democracy is still better than all of the other systems because weakly regulated economies are susceptible to tyranny from a dictator coming in to 'save' people from the economy (cf. 1930s Germany).

If this was true, then the relatively weakly regulated economies of past US, UK, and on would--as you imply--turn into Nazi Germanies. This simply isn't the case because susceptibility to tyranny from a dictator is not mono-causal (e.g. your model of regulation --> tyrannical susceptibility).

But you can see the beginnings of this in the weakly regulated economy of the past US, if you look at the political response to the enormous power Standard Oil had coming into the 1890s. The point I made wasn't that any particular economic model favors a dictatorial power taking over (note: socialism is not fascism), but rather that politicians will use a market that strays significantly from the perfect competition model as an excuse to grab government power. This can happen in any economic system under the right circumstances. I was making a statement that compared the past US to the current US and arguing that the only outcomes were either 1) something like the current system or 2) a dictatorial take-over.

I vote outer space.


--Andy

3 people - me, myself and I... everyone else can just pay me the taxes and I'll take care of everything

Metsfanmax wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Ultimately, the problem is that democratic government, generally understood, will always remain conducive to concentrating the benefits for the more politically organized groups (lobbyism, cronyism--from businesses, unions, elderly, etc.) while dispersing the costs on the less politically organized (generally, the poor, the apathetic, the unrepresented future generations--think: long-term costs of deficit spending).

Democracy is still better than all of the other systems because weakly regulated economies are susceptible to tyranny from a dictator coming in to 'save' people from the economy (cf. 1930s Germany).

If this was true, then the relatively weakly regulated economies of past US, UK, and on would--as you imply--turn into Nazi Germanies. This simply isn't the case because susceptibility to tyranny from a dictator is not mono-causal (e.g. your model of regulation --> tyrannical susceptibility).

But you can see the beginnings of this in the weakly regulated economy of the past US, if you look at the political response to the enormous power Standard Oil had coming into the 1890s. The point I made wasn't that any particular economic model favors a dictatorial power taking over (note: socialism is not fascism), but rather that politicians will use a market that strays significantly from the perfect competition model as an excuse to grab government power. This can happen in any economic system under the right circumstances. I was making a statement that compared the past US to the current US and arguing that the only outcomes were either 1) something like the current system or 2) a dictatorial take-over.

The point about Socialism was related to the stupid economic policies which followed in the Weimar Republic. It wasn't related to the National Socialists, which gee, are Socialists--given their economic policies. Italy was fascist; not Nazi Germany, which was national socialist. You wouldn't happen to be trying to whitewash socialism, would you? That would not be just nor intellectually honest.

Your previous argument was awful, and now you're modifying it. Okay. It's not true that those were the only outcomes; it's unknown and becomes a matter of counterfactual meandering. Economic institutions matter in terms of political stability, and the US pretty much had a good swing to the dictator model with FDR and his cronies (so (2) to a large degree happened; the alleged necessity between (1) and (2) falls apart). However, given the history of our economic institutions, the US could recover from a decade and half of foolish economic policies, but the culture was forever changed, and the political institutions continue to reinforce that stupidity. So, it's not like (2) is permanent, nor is it the case that (1) is the savior. You wouldn't happen to be trying to whitewash crony capitalism, would you? I recall a post where you were doing that... Anyway,

Countries vary in their recovery from dictators, and your model doesn't allow for this because either they turn into current systems of political capitalism, or lapse into dictatorship. Upon further reflection, the (1) and (2) options don't make any sense, since there's many other possibilities and for reasons already explained.

"that politicians will use a market that strays significantly from the perfect competition model as an excuse to grab government power."

There's so many falsehoods in this statement.

National regulation was occurring mainly during its formative years of the 1890s while maturing in its later, formative years (largely up to the 1930s--which involves a more complicated story). It's not the case that the market was straying from perfect competition because (a) it wasn't, (b) that model/idea didn't apply to public policy, and (c) government largely viewed itself as uninvolved in economic affairs until mainly the 1930s. It was rather the case that certain businesses were getting tired of competing with more and more businesses. Long story short, they colluded with government in order beat down the competition. The market was actually pushing toward more competition, which was whittling away the profits of the larger businesses, but this was prevented due to not only particular businesses but also the government.

The 1930s sealed the deal toward more control, and 'the people' gobbled it up. Idiots today still worship FDR--just like idiots in Russia worship Stalin, and even worse they make the tired old ignorant argument that Hoover was a free market guy, when clearly Hoover was implementing the early stages of the New Deal, which FDR essentially picked up, dumped more idiocy into it, and let it rip. There's also the myth of robber barons as well. Given so much ignorance, it's amazing that markets can still pull us through.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Ultimately, the problem is that democratic government, generally understood, will always remain conducive to concentrating the benefits for the more politically organized groups (lobbyism, cronyism--from businesses, unions, elderly, etc.) while dispersing the costs on the less politically organized (generally, the poor, the apathetic, the unrepresented future generations--think: long-term costs of deficit spending).

Democracy is still better than all of the other systems because weakly regulated economies are susceptible to tyranny from a dictator coming in to 'save' people from the economy (cf. 1930s Germany).

If this was true, then the relatively weakly regulated economies of past US, UK, and on would--as you imply--turn into Nazi Germanies. This simply isn't the case because susceptibility to tyranny from a dictator is not mono-causal (e.g. your model of regulation --> tyrannical susceptibility).

But you can see the beginnings of this in the weakly regulated economy of the past US, if you look at the political response to the enormous power Standard Oil had coming into the 1890s. The point I made wasn't that any particular economic model favors a dictatorial power taking over (note: socialism is not fascism), but rather that politicians will use a market that strays significantly from the perfect competition model as an excuse to grab government power. This can happen in any economic system under the right circumstances. I was making a statement that compared the past US to the current US and arguing that the only outcomes were either 1) something like the current system or 2) a dictatorial take-over.

The point about Socialism was related to the stupid economic policies which followed in the Weimar Republic. It wasn't related to the National Socialists, which gee, are Socialists--given their economic policies. Italy was fascist; not Nazi Germany, which was national socialist. You wouldn't happen to be trying to whitewash socialism, would you? That would not be just nor intellectually honest.

The point I made was that the economic policy is distinct from the political policy. The fact that there were socialists in Germany does not uniquely relate to the fact that a dictator ended up taking power, as is evident from the fact that this happened in both Italy and Germany as well. What this demonstrates is that regardless of economic system, people can claim political power by trying to 'reform' the economic system. The only real defense against this is a powerful electoral body. They may vote in a system that ends up being akin to crony capitalism, but that is net better for society than the tyrannical dictator.

Perhaps you misunderstood my original point; I was saying that all economic systems are susceptible to tyrannical take-over, including weakly regulated ones, and so the inevitable result is fairly strong regulation (even if that means pre-emptively with something resembling a capitalistic system). Whether or not this is ideal is irrelevant, because inevitably money translates into political power.

Given so much ignorance, it's amazing that markets can still pull us through.

You don't factor that ignorance into your description of an ideal system, which is why your descriptions are irrelevant. You can plead all you want for people to just get more educated, but you're less useless if you factor in reality into your models. The free market works precisely because everyone is trying to 'get theirs', so you would have to be massively ignorant to assume that this behavior is going to vanish when we turn to the arena of politics.