3 ms·

Is the purpose of a government to do something about climate change in the same way that the purpose of a firefighter is to do something about a burning house?

Is the purpose of a government to do something about climate change in the same way that the purpose of a firefighter is to do something about a burning house? Why?

Angostura 11y ago
Citizens assign functions to governments that are impractical for individuals or markets to handle. It doesn't make sense for everyone to buy a fire truck and there isn't a good business to be made from putting out fires. A classic case where individuals may band together to invoke government is is where a 'tragedy of the commons' situation is threatened. Left to its own devices, it is perfectly rational in the short term for an individual or business to continue polluting, over-fishing, deforesting or using the atmosphere/oceans as an infinite waste removal resource. In the medium and long term it isn't such a good idea and governments provide the least worst mechanism that we have for citizens to collectively enforce actions that can protect people, society or the environment.
- pbhjpbhj 11y ago
  >there isn't a good business to be made from putting out fires. // This used to be how it worked, at least in the UK. It's probably quite a good business; there I'd a question of mutual destruction for the rich if they just let poor people's houses burn but also I feel there's a factor of social morality at play too. It is socialism, at least in part, that has brought democratised healthcare and schooling, firefighting and policing. Profit motive thankfully isn't there only social driver.
js8 11y ago
If government has any "useful" purpose, then it's coordination. In the two examples given, it's coordination to avoid negative effects of economic externalities. In the case of firefighting, the negative externality is that burning house may present danger to other houses nearby it. In the case of global warming, the negative externality is CO2 pollution from burning of fossil fuels.

Is the purpose of a government to do something about climate change in the same way that the purpose of a firefighter is to do something about a burning house? Why?

Angostura 11y ago

Citizens assign functions to governments that are impractical for individuals or markets to handle. It doesn't make sense for everyone to buy a fire truck and there isn't a good business to be made from putting out fires. A classic case where individuals may band together to invoke government is is where a 'tragedy of the commons' situation is threatened. Left to its own devices, it is perfectly rational in the short term for an individual or business to continue polluting, over-fishing, deforesting or using the atmosphere/oceans as an infinite waste removal resource. In the medium and long term it isn't such a good idea and governments provide the least worst mechanism that we have for citizens to collectively enforce actions that can protect people, society or the environment.

pbhjpbhj 11y ago
>there isn't a good business to be made from putting out fires. // This used to be how it worked, at least in the UK. It's probably quite a good business; there I'd a question of mutual destruction for the rich if they just let poor people's houses burn but also I feel there's a factor of social morality at play too. It is socialism, at least in part, that has brought democratised healthcare and schooling, firefighting and policing. Profit motive thankfully isn't there only social driver.

js8 11y ago

If government has any "useful" purpose, then it's coordination. In the two examples given, it's coordination to avoid negative effects of economic externalities. In the case of firefighting, the negative externality is that burning house may present danger to other houses nearby it. In the case of global warming, the negative externality is CO2 pollution from burning of fossil fuels.