6 ms·

He's making a few assumptions: 1) Government knows how to spend our money wisely on things that improve the quality of our lives 2) Getting rich equates to im

• redfiche 15y ago
  He says no such thing. He says we live in an imperfect world where the government has a role to play in getting us out of this recession. As to your second point, that's based on your opinion of what constitutes making society better.
  • Hisoka 15y ago
    I didnt say he said those things explicitly. But by saying it's patriotic, he's assuming those things. Yes, it's based on my opinion. Yes, I'm generalizing, and I bet the majority of human beings on this earth would agree there are industries that make people rich and are harmful to the general public. In fact, I'd argue there's a TON of them. Humans love to self destruct (ie. get fat, kill themselves, get addicted, overspend, etc)
    • SigmundA 15y ago
      Probably why we need government eh? Have you ever set your clock ahead 10 minutes to help keep you from being late? Why, you could just be responsible instead? This is the premise of a democratic government, when you realize that you will not always do the best thing for yourself or your neighbors, but you still know what the best thing is and have a government that enforces it, knowing it could come for you if you break the contract. Obviously it is not a perfect system and we must be vigilant to improve it constantly, but anarchy is not a viable option. In many cases government does spend more wisely than any single individual, but that may not be the cheapest approach, there is a difference. Look up the "Price of anarchy".
      • jwallaceparker 15y ago
        Can you give some examples of the "many cases" in which a government spends more wisely than an individual?
        • jessedhillon 15y ago
          Rather than me hiring security for my house at a rate of maybe one hour a day -- the only amount of private security I could afford -- the government pools the money of my entire community, hires many security guards, equips them, and lets them drive around my neighborhood. Then, instead of my spending an hour or two educating all the kids in the neighborhood, in the hope that the next generation of people aren't morons, they take some money from all property owners and use it to build schools. Those schools to ensure that a very wide swath of the population, even the poor and stupid, meet minimum education standards. That way, at the very least they can go and do the service jobs that I don't want to do, and so many of them meet that minimum education level that they can be hired for a low wage, thus keeping the price I pay low.
          • SigmundA 15y ago
            Thanks, this would have been my response for the most part. National Defense, Police, Fire, Education, Roads, Water Systems, Sewer Systems, and Healthcare(just a form of nation defense IMO). These are all very expensive endeavors that simply don't work that well if the individuals "shops around".
          • jwallaceparker 15y ago
            The government spends wastefully in defense, education and every other service it seeks to provide. I agree in principle that it's generally beneficial for individuals to pool resources in order to address common needs. But this happens on its own in a marketplace. It's called the division of labor.
            • jessedhillon 15y ago
              Wastefully compared to what? Do you know of any other organization that provides essential social services to hundreds of millions of people? Do you have actual facts to supply here? Can you provide an a legitimate comparison for us, or are we supposed to simply accept your free market mantra? The existence of waste and inefficient behaviors does not mean that the system is wasteful.
• arethuza 15y ago
  I don't gamble, smoke or eat fast food - but I'd hate to live anywhere that didn't give people the freedom to do these things if they wanted (and in the case of smoking, outside or in their own properties).
• rgarcia 15y ago
  I think there's an argument to be made that even the industries you mention improve the lives of people in society. Assuming (1) all gambling/cigarette/fast food transactions are voluntary on both sides, and (2) people act rationally, then any money that you spend is done because you perceive the good you receive to be worth more than the money you spend on it. One counterargument in the case of addictive drugs or "vices" is that transactions aren't completely voluntary, since you are acting under the influence. In gambling you might also not act rationally. Nevertheless these are still a subset of all transactions, and taking your argument to the extreme of outlawing these industries would prevent a decent number of society-bettering transactions from taking place.
  • Hisoka 15y ago
    I never suggested outlawing any industries. Just pointing out the flaws in his post. Our modern society is set up so that it takes our primal urges to the extreme, making it BAD for the individual, but probably good for the overall economy. Our choices are hardly rational because we don't understand how our genes and primal urges work subconsciously. That's why men cheat, do drugs, and self sabotage ourselves.