6 ms·

> When I started out, I believed that government regulation could solve every problem with relatively simple intervention. You don't have to be a tea-partying

by JackFr 11y ago

> When I started out, I believed that government regulation could solve every problem with relatively simple intervention. You don't have to be a tea-partying libertarian to see that such an idea is shockingly naive.

pekk 11y ago
Not quite as naive as believing that every problem works itself out as long as the government goes away.
- murbard2 11y ago
  Not quite as naive as thinking that the belief that every problem works itself out as long as the government goes away is anything more than a strawman for the libertarian position.
  - tertius 11y ago
    Break that apart just a little more. Except if it was your goal to write something hard to understand.
    - murbard2 11y ago
      (Not quite as naive as (thinking that (is anything more than (the belief that (every problem works itself out as long as the government goes away)) (a strawman for the libertarian position))))
      - tertius 11y ago
        I don't think "no government" is libertarian, that's anarchy.
        murbard2 11y ago
        Anarchy isn't utopia, but on the balance, I consider that real governments (not the platonic disinterested central coordinator) introduce more problems than they solve. Not every problem is caused by the government, but that doesn't mean they can be solved by government, nor does it mean that they warrant having a government in the first place.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- fdanconia 11y ago
  To further your idea, I believe there needs to be a healthy balance of both. Blanket statements, policies etc tend to raise more problems after the solve the initial problems it set out to solve. Take my username- Fdanconia pays homage to Francisco d'ansonia, one of the protagonists from Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. It reminds me that I used to think "pure capitalism and no government" was an answer. Now, I believe that a healthy mix of both regulation and competition is essential to our society.
- escherize 11y ago
  Could you give some examples about what kinds of problems a governmentless society can't solve that a government could?
lighthawk 11y ago
> You don't have to be a tea-partying libertarian to see that such an idea is shockingly naive. But, it is a viewpoint deeply held. I've spoken with people over 30 and even over 50 years old that still bought into the idea that government is the solution to all problems. On the other hand, the view that capitalism and privatization fixes all problems is just as flawed. There is no one-system-fits-all and it can't even be said that one system is necessarily a better choice in any given situation. Status-quo is usually a good choice though, if it is working.
- JoeAltmaier 11y ago
  For a thousand generations we did without both (govt and capitalism). SO a lot of systems are possible. Problem is, we need a system that scales, and village life doesn't scale. SnowCrash had a solution, sort of - walled communities with little interaction (except for the Pizza Guy).
  - meatysnapper 11y ago
    Pizzanomics
- brooklyndavs 11y ago
  > There is no one-system-fits-all and it can't even be said that one system is necessarily a better choice in any given situation. Status-quo is usually a good choice though, if it is working I mostly agree with this except currently the Status-qou isn't working for most people and the environment. The pendulum swung too far towards the "government bad, markets good" end of the spectrum. To tackle the big problems of the day (Climate change, income inequality, chronic unemployment/underemployment due to technology changes and automation, etc) we will need much more government regulation. That includes local and national regulation with unprecedented global cooperation. The free market on its own has proven itself incapable of solving the problems society faces and in fact is causing some of the above problems.
- dsfsdfd 11y ago
  There is no effective model for society. We cannot describe it in terms that allow us to predict it's behaviour. We are therefore doomed to a stumbling random walk through a phase space littered with nightmare scenarios. We need a tool to slay this beast, to show us how to make a society that can hold itself together.
liquidise 11y ago
A bit of a tangent to the article, and your point at large, but i must: For the politically minded: the Tea Party promoters are not libertarians. The basic platform argues for an increase in government control over social issues. The antithesis of the libertarian definition. The Tea Party is really just farther-right conservative.
- AnimalMuppet 11y ago
  That's not my impression. To me, it seems that the Tea Party is mostly a reaction against Republicans that are not fiscal conservatives. I will stand corrected if you can point me to something that is an official "platform" of the Tea Party, but to my knowledge, no such thing exists...
  - wisty 11y ago
    I think it's a reaction against stuff that Republicans don't like with the Republican Party.
  - kevin_thibedeau 11y ago
    >the Tea Party is mostly a reaction against Republicans that are not fiscal conservatives Find me a tea partier who is willing to cut pork going to their own district? They don't exist. All their bloviating about being more conservative than the other guy is dog whistles to get themselves elected.
  - Turing_Machine 11y ago
    Yeah, I'm no Tea Partier, but was wondering about this "platform", too.
- brooklyndavs 11y ago
  > The Tea Party is really just farther-right conservative. Republicans with funny hats :)
ethbro 11y ago
It is a naive position, but no more so (as other have pointed out) than the idea that unregulated free markets can solve every problem. Both of these positions are things which might naturally occur to someone with relatively little experience watching the impact of regulation or the evolution of unconstrained free markets. Is it "shocking" that someone who hasn't had an opportunity to observe a system in action (which is pretty much what the entire piece is about) comes to a naive conclusion? No. I'd say that's a perfectly reasonably naive position.

by JackFr 11y ago

pekk 11y ago

Not quite as naive as believing that every problem works itself out as long as the government goes away.

murbard2 11y ago
Not quite as naive as thinking that the belief that every problem works itself out as long as the government goes away is anything more than a strawman for the libertarian position.
- tertius 11y ago
  Break that apart just a little more. Except if it was your goal to write something hard to understand.
  - murbard2 11y ago
    (Not quite as naive as (thinking that (is anything more than (the belief that (every problem works itself out as long as the government goes away)) (a strawman for the libertarian position))))
    - tertius 11y ago
      I don't think "no government" is libertarian, that's anarchy.
      - murbard2 11y ago
        Anarchy isn't utopia, but on the balance, I consider that real governments (not the platonic disinterested central coordinator) introduce more problems than they solve. Not every problem is caused by the government, but that doesn't mean they can be solved by government, nor does it mean that they warrant having a government in the first place.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
fdanconia 11y ago
To further your idea, I believe there needs to be a healthy balance of both. Blanket statements, policies etc tend to raise more problems after the solve the initial problems it set out to solve. Take my username- Fdanconia pays homage to Francisco d'ansonia, one of the protagonists from Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. It reminds me that I used to think "pure capitalism and no government" was an answer. Now, I believe that a healthy mix of both regulation and competition is essential to our society.
escherize 11y ago
Could you give some examples about what kinds of problems a governmentless society can't solve that a government could?

lighthawk 11y ago

> You don't have to be a tea-partying libertarian to see that such an idea is shockingly naive. But, it is a viewpoint deeply held. I've spoken with people over 30 and even over 50 years old that still bought into the idea that government is the solution to all problems. On the other hand, the view that capitalism and privatization fixes all problems is just as flawed. There is no one-system-fits-all and it can't even be said that one system is necessarily a better choice in any given situation. Status-quo is usually a good choice though, if it is working.

JoeAltmaier 11y ago
For a thousand generations we did without both (govt and capitalism). SO a lot of systems are possible. Problem is, we need a system that scales, and village life doesn't scale. SnowCrash had a solution, sort of - walled communities with little interaction (except for the Pizza Guy).
- meatysnapper 11y ago
  Pizzanomics
brooklyndavs 11y ago
> There is no one-system-fits-all and it can't even be said that one system is necessarily a better choice in any given situation. Status-quo is usually a good choice though, if it is working I mostly agree with this except currently the Status-qou isn't working for most people and the environment. The pendulum swung too far towards the "government bad, markets good" end of the spectrum. To tackle the big problems of the day (Climate change, income inequality, chronic unemployment/underemployment due to technology changes and automation, etc) we will need much more government regulation. That includes local and national regulation with unprecedented global cooperation. The free market on its own has proven itself incapable of solving the problems society faces and in fact is causing some of the above problems.
dsfsdfd 11y ago
There is no effective model for society. We cannot describe it in terms that allow us to predict it's behaviour. We are therefore doomed to a stumbling random walk through a phase space littered with nightmare scenarios. We need a tool to slay this beast, to show us how to make a society that can hold itself together.

liquidise 11y ago

A bit of a tangent to the article, and your point at large, but i must: For the politically minded: the Tea Party promoters are not libertarians. The basic platform argues for an increase in government control over social issues. The antithesis of the libertarian definition. The Tea Party is really just farther-right conservative.

AnimalMuppet 11y ago
That's not my impression. To me, it seems that the Tea Party is mostly a reaction against Republicans that are not fiscal conservatives. I will stand corrected if you can point me to something that is an official "platform" of the Tea Party, but to my knowledge, no such thing exists...
- wisty 11y ago
  I think it's a reaction against stuff that Republicans don't like with the Republican Party.
- kevin_thibedeau 11y ago
  >the Tea Party is mostly a reaction against Republicans that are not fiscal conservatives Find me a tea partier who is willing to cut pork going to their own district? They don't exist. All their bloviating about being more conservative than the other guy is dog whistles to get themselves elected.
- Turing_Machine 11y ago
  Yeah, I'm no Tea Partier, but was wondering about this "platform", too.
brooklyndavs 11y ago
> The Tea Party is really just farther-right conservative. Republicans with funny hats :)

ethbro 11y ago

It is a naive position, but no more so (as other have pointed out) than the idea that unregulated free markets can solve every problem. Both of these positions are things which might naturally occur to someone with relatively little experience watching the impact of regulation or the evolution of unconstrained free markets. Is it "shocking" that someone who hasn't had an opportunity to observe a system in action (which is pretty much what the entire piece is about) comes to a naive conclusion? No. I'd say that's a perfectly reasonably naive position.