7 ms·

I meant that they can only be provided by the state in an effective way to protect the negative rights. That is what you need precisely to avoid becoming a fail

by m4nu3l 5y ago

I meant that they can only be provided by the state in an effective way to protect the negative rights. That is what you need precisely to avoid becoming a failed state, where negative rights are not protected.

mbrodersen 5y ago
So it seems to me that you only want the government to protect people against harm from other people. You don’t want the government to protect people against harm from non-people. If that is correct then you don’t want the government to provide sea rescue services, weather reports, rules for wearing seat belts, weather emergency services, scientific research etc?
- m4nu3l 5y ago
  > So it seems to me that you only want the government to protect people against harm from other people. Mostly, with some exceptions. If there is a market failure or natural catastrophe that is going to kill us all and only the government can fix it then I'm OK with that. So, if only the government can prevent a disease to spread or fix pollution, or redirect asteroids, I'm fine with that. But the bar is very high. > If that is correct then you don’t want the government to provide sea rescue services, weather reports, rules for wearing seat belts, weather emergency services, scientific research I think some of these can be provided at least to great level by insurance companies but I'm not convinced they can entirely be provided on voluntary basis, so I don't know. But other are clearly of of the scope of my ideal government like rules to wear a seat belt or not. > scientific research This is an interesting one. I see lots of people saying that only the government can do valuable research because a lot of recent inventions were initially funded or subsidized by the government - like the internet. I think that private research could work as good if not better. I also think though, why would a private company invest in research if the government is going to tax them and do that research regardless? I think it is an overcrowding issue. Also a lot of technologies that started in government labs are almost unrecognizable after all the private research and development that went into them after. I'm not saying that negative rights can be achieved perfectly. But positive rights are too problematic IMO, and the further we can shy away from them the better.
  - mbrodersen 5y ago
    Almost all basic research is funded by governments. Even private universities in the US get almost all of their research paid for by the government via grants. And the private universities then turn around and use their research expertise, funded by the government, to attract paying students. So they are private organisations, heavily funded by the government, not benefitting the public by providing a University education for free. The European approach is more honest. People pay taxes, the taxes fund Universities, and the Universities do research and education that benefits the tax paying people. That seems to be a less harm approach compared with the US model of private universities. Agree?
    - m4nu3l 5y ago
      I agree that that's how things are. The fact that they are like this doesn't mean they must be. I believe there is a huge market for private research. Imagine the company getting to nuclear fusion first. They will be extremely profitable, and investor don't even have to pick a company. They can diversify. So I disagree with the conclusion. I believe this is a big case of Crowding-out. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowding_out_(economics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowding_out_(economics).
      - mbrodersen 5y ago
        If there was a huge market for basic research then private companies would be all over it. The reason why there isn’t, and never will be, is because investors would rather invest in companies with a clear ROI than in no goal blue sky research. Kinda obvious when you think about it. Investors want to maximise their chance to make money. So they invest accordingly.
        m4nu3l 5y ago
        No, you missed the point about Crowding-out. The phenomena is exactly this, there is a market but because the Government does it, it crowds out investments.
        5y ago

by m4nu3l 5y ago

mbrodersen 5y ago

So it seems to me that you only want the government to protect people against harm from other people. You don’t want the government to protect people against harm from non-people. If that is correct then you don’t want the government to provide sea rescue services, weather reports, rules for wearing seat belts, weather emergency services, scientific research etc?

m4nu3l 5y ago
> So it seems to me that you only want the government to protect people against harm from other people. Mostly, with some exceptions. If there is a market failure or natural catastrophe that is going to kill us all and only the government can fix it then I'm OK with that. So, if only the government can prevent a disease to spread or fix pollution, or redirect asteroids, I'm fine with that. But the bar is very high. > If that is correct then you don’t want the government to provide sea rescue services, weather reports, rules for wearing seat belts, weather emergency services, scientific research I think some of these can be provided at least to great level by insurance companies but I'm not convinced they can entirely be provided on voluntary basis, so I don't know. But other are clearly of of the scope of my ideal government like rules to wear a seat belt or not. > scientific research This is an interesting one. I see lots of people saying that only the government can do valuable research because a lot of recent inventions were initially funded or subsidized by the government - like the internet. I think that private research could work as good if not better. I also think though, why would a private company invest in research if the government is going to tax them and do that research regardless? I think it is an overcrowding issue. Also a lot of technologies that started in government labs are almost unrecognizable after all the private research and development that went into them after. I'm not saying that negative rights can be achieved perfectly. But positive rights are too problematic IMO, and the further we can shy away from them the better.
- mbrodersen 5y ago
  Almost all basic research is funded by governments. Even private universities in the US get almost all of their research paid for by the government via grants. And the private universities then turn around and use their research expertise, funded by the government, to attract paying students. So they are private organisations, heavily funded by the government, not benefitting the public by providing a University education for free. The European approach is more honest. People pay taxes, the taxes fund Universities, and the Universities do research and education that benefits the tax paying people. That seems to be a less harm approach compared with the US model of private universities. Agree?
  - m4nu3l 5y ago
    I agree that that's how things are. The fact that they are like this doesn't mean they must be. I believe there is a huge market for private research. Imagine the company getting to nuclear fusion first. They will be extremely profitable, and investor don't even have to pick a company. They can diversify. So I disagree with the conclusion. I believe this is a big case of Crowding-out. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowding_out_(economics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowding_out_(economics).
    - mbrodersen 5y ago
      If there was a huge market for basic research then private companies would be all over it. The reason why there isn’t, and never will be, is because investors would rather invest in companies with a clear ROI than in no goal blue sky research. Kinda obvious when you think about it. Investors want to maximise their chance to make money. So they invest accordingly.
      - m4nu3l 5y ago
        No, you missed the point about Crowding-out. The phenomena is exactly this, there is a market but because the Government does it, it crowds out investments.
      - 5y ago