4 ms·

I should have said this in my other comment: I agree with you that if the government is going to spend money, it's better to just give people the money and let

by javert 7y ago

I should have said this in my other comment: I agree with you that if the government is going to spend money, it's better to just give people the money and let them make their own decisions about how to spend it. But I think it's better that the government not spend the money in the first place. It's still robbing Peter to pay Paul, which is wrong even if Paul is poorer, and it's still going to lead to a suboptimal economic outcome. In a free market Peter would be happy to offer Paul a student loan if Paul is a good credit risk (i.e., a virtuous person deserving of someone else's trust and resources).

EGreg 7y ago
What would you be ok with the government spending money on and why? If you are ok with police or courts or schools or firefighters then why not other things?
- javert 7y ago
  Rational people should seek to reduce or eliminate physical force, or the threat of physical force, used against them or their trading partners. This is the only controversial thing I have to say in this comment (and I don't expect you to believe it just because I say it, but there it is nonetheless). Everything else in this comment follows directly and non-controversially from that. Government is the institution that bans the use of force by exercising a monopoly on the use of force (which requires force). In other words, government is what takes us out of an anarchic, Hobbesian state of nature. So the government should hold a monopoly on force but should only use it to prevent anyone else from using force against individual citizens. Thus, police and courts are legitimate functions of government, to maintain the internal ban on force and punish those who use it (e.g. criminals). To protect citizens from external threats, a defensive military is a legitimate function of government. So just those three institutions: police, courts, and military. Schools and firefighting should be left to the private sector (so either for-profit businesses or local co-ops).

by javert 7y ago

EGreg 7y ago

What would you be ok with the government spending money on and why? If you are ok with police or courts or schools or firefighters then why not other things?

javert 7y ago
Rational people should seek to reduce or eliminate physical force, or the threat of physical force, used against them or their trading partners. This is the only controversial thing I have to say in this comment (and I don't expect you to believe it just because I say it, but there it is nonetheless). Everything else in this comment follows directly and non-controversially from that. Government is the institution that bans the use of force by exercising a monopoly on the use of force (which requires force). In other words, government is what takes us out of an anarchic, Hobbesian state of nature. So the government should hold a monopoly on force but should only use it to prevent anyone else from using force against individual citizens. Thus, police and courts are legitimate functions of government, to maintain the internal ban on force and punish those who use it (e.g. criminals). To protect citizens from external threats, a defensive military is a legitimate function of government. So just those three institutions: police, courts, and military. Schools and firefighting should be left to the private sector (so either for-profit businesses or local co-ops).