4 ms·

I think you are missing the point of the Left - that owners of capital tend to put up fences, set guards so that other people cannot fish in "their" water. And

I think you are missing the point of the Left - that owners of capital tend to put up fences, set guards so that other people cannot fish in "their" water. And additionally knowing how to fish is SOL when we over fish our resources because market signals are ineffective at large scale directed action. And I get itchy each time someone says if only we were all free it would be such a better world because soon someone says I shall make them free. We need "The State" as a form of insurance for risks that don't occur often enough for actuaries to profitably price, or occur too often and actuaries cannot change all of our behaviour all at once

gen220 7y ago
I pretty much agree with everything you're saying. IMO, the role of the government is to make it safe to be fishers and teachers of fishers. That means shutting down the people who would murder you for your fish, and shutting down the companies that would monopolize the bodies of water. But, should the government catch your fish for you? It seems that we feel like the answer to that question is "it depends", since not everyone can fish. But then again, this is why we have division of labor, and geographic mobility. If you can't fish in Arkansas, maybe you can farm in Montana. Some people are in need of special help, but should that come from the government? In the past, it's come from communities. What about the people shunned from communities? It's a rabbit hole. My point is, it's hard to draw a line that doesn't lead to "let the government do it". But the government isn't particularly effective at most things it has attempted to do: I generally feel like, for most problems we turn to the government for, there's usually a better way (and by that, I do not simply "if we were all freer"), but it does seems to be found more often an emergent property of liberal societies than a prescriptive form to fill out. In case it isn't clear, I don't hold very strong views here, I'm sorry if that they might have itched you, just thinking out loud :)
- lifeisstillgood 7y ago
  I worry when I hear "community" as a support mechanism. Community can "rally round" in times of crisis - that's great. but mostly they are terrible. Communities have abused minorities, locked away the different and the challenging, starved, beaten, exiled and ignored. Governments do this too - but the thing about democratic governments is we can find out and force corrections. And governments can afford to employ experts to do the daily boring work of looking after those in need - community interest tends to wane as well. It's not perfect- and I disagree with "feeding people for the rest of their lives". I, without any good evidence, feel the Chesterton style Distrubitism cited downthread is most likely to have good community outcomes and still allow government to fill in the gaps. Overall - in my view, how governments assist the needy is a policy choice. Whether they assist is a fundamental duty. Edit: I understand you are agreeing, I am not trying to spark a fight, just want to be careful about the idea that community can solve much these days. (Mafia: Organised Crime, Government: Organised Community)?

gen220 7y ago

I pretty much agree with everything you're saying. IMO, the role of the government is to make it safe to be fishers and teachers of fishers. That means shutting down the people who would murder you for your fish, and shutting down the companies that would monopolize the bodies of water. But, should the government catch your fish for you? It seems that we feel like the answer to that question is "it depends", since not everyone can fish. But then again, this is why we have division of labor, and geographic mobility. If you can't fish in Arkansas, maybe you can farm in Montana. Some people are in need of special help, but should that come from the government? In the past, it's come from communities. What about the people shunned from communities? It's a rabbit hole. My point is, it's hard to draw a line that doesn't lead to "let the government do it". But the government isn't particularly effective at most things it has attempted to do: I generally feel like, for most problems we turn to the government for, there's usually a better way (and by that, I do not simply "if we were all freer"), but it does seems to be found more often an emergent property of liberal societies than a prescriptive form to fill out. In case it isn't clear, I don't hold very strong views here, I'm sorry if that they might have itched you, just thinking out loud :)

lifeisstillgood 7y ago
I worry when I hear "community" as a support mechanism. Community can "rally round" in times of crisis - that's great. but mostly they are terrible. Communities have abused minorities, locked away the different and the challenging, starved, beaten, exiled and ignored. Governments do this too - but the thing about democratic governments is we can find out and force corrections. And governments can afford to employ experts to do the daily boring work of looking after those in need - community interest tends to wane as well. It's not perfect- and I disagree with "feeding people for the rest of their lives". I, without any good evidence, feel the Chesterton style Distrubitism cited downthread is most likely to have good community outcomes and still allow government to fill in the gaps. Overall - in my view, how governments assist the needy is a policy choice. Whether they assist is a fundamental duty. Edit: I understand you are agreeing, I am not trying to spark a fight, just want to be careful about the idea that community can solve much these days. (Mafia: Organised Crime, Government: Organised Community)?