3 ms·

> The purpose of government should be to ensure that the minimum expectations of its citizens are met. That seems like the purpose of a welfare state. If you

> The purpose of government should be to ensure that the minimum expectations of its citizens are met. That seems like the purpose of a welfare state. If you want a government that sticks to the 'minimums' you're asking for, I'd redefine that purpose statement to something like: The purpose of government is to ensure the natural rights of its citizens, and nothing else.

EGreg 15y ago
I've heard that a lot. The problem with this kind of formulation is that "rights" is a loaded term, like "intellectual property". It implies that there are some universally recognized rights that come from nature, and only those. For example, if "intellectual property" was a natural right, then where does the 20 years come from in patents? That number 20, or the length of copyright, show that it's society's conventions and not rights. Instead, I treat everything as "expectations". Thousands of years ago, most people expected to hunt or farm if they wanted to eat. 500 years ago you didn't expect almost every child to survive past childbirth and the early years. Now we expect all these things and more. Clean water. Food that doesn't contain killer bacteria. Buildings that don't have obvious structural problems. Obviously we can't ensure things 100% but we as a society can work to set up organizations to regulate and oversee these things. A free market allows anyone to start cutting corners at any time, such as a new and inexperienced company that wants to make things cheaper. For example, a real estate developer can build a building that's not up to code. In theory, we could all walk around with our own subscriptions to private "auditing agencies" like Zagat for buildings, that would inspect buildings as they are built or whatever. But most of us outsource this kind of stuff to a centralized government. Which we vote for. Also, government could tax us to do unprofitable stuff such as the US Postal Service. However, the problem is that our government lacks incentives to stop growing, and we need to introduce them.
- jwallaceparker 15y ago
  I define "rights" as the freedom to do whatever you want with your body and property as long as you don't infringe on another's freedom to do the same. But as you say, "rights" and "expectations" are slippery slopes. > if "intellectual property" was a natural right I don't believe this is a natural right. If anything, nature shows us that there is no such thing as intellectual property. Once an idea is "out in the open" it's out there for good. > Also, government could tax us to do unprofitable stuff such as the US Postal Service. But this is a terrible thing, is it not? I'd guess at least 85% of mail is junk mail. This is only possible because mail is so cheap and the post office runs at an annual loss in the billions. Eliminate the post office. Let UPS/FedEx/whoever compete to deliver your mail. Pay $3 to mail a letter. Save trees. Eliminate junk mail. > However, the problem is that our government lacks incentives to stop growing, and we need to introduce them. I agree. I'd start with not allowing the government to print its own money. As long as it can, it will never have an incentive to stop growing.
  - jarek 15y ago
    If you are advocating increased independence for the Federal Reserve (discussing the U.S. case), are you concerned that it will then grow itself to perpetuate the organization as discussed elsewhere in the comments on this post?
    - jwallaceparker 15y ago
      More likely the eradication of the Fed.
      - EGreg 15y ago
        The Ron Paul solution? How do you propose to move from the current situation to a non elastic currency backed by a combination of commodities, in a way that doesn't involve hurting a lot of people? And how would it be better?
  - EGreg 15y ago
    I am not saying that "expectations" are slippery slopes, it is just the word I use to describe the situation, much like I use "government granted monopoly right" instead of "intellectual property right". I am just observing what governments do and what their purpose is supposed to be. Once we can agree on what their purpose is, then we can decide on what they should be doing, and perhaps how to make them more efficient at doing it. People today expect more from their governments than 2000 years ago. If we were talking about "rights", they would be the same throughout time. But it's more mundane than that. Anyway, "ensuring that the minimum expectations of the citizens are met" is not just for welfare states. It is for ALL governments that serve their people.
superuser2 15y ago
Life is a natural right. Ensuring that I do not die in a train crash (or because I cannot afford health insurance, or because the factory I work at takes no safety precautions, or because the market choses crash-prone passenger planes, or because some idiot who doesn't believe in spectrum ownership jams my 911 call) all fall within the umbrella of protecting life. Yet these are decried as examples of an overly invasive welfare state.

EGreg 15y ago

I've heard that a lot. The problem with this kind of formulation is that "rights" is a loaded term, like "intellectual property". It implies that there are some universally recognized rights that come from nature, and only those. For example, if "intellectual property" was a natural right, then where does the 20 years come from in patents? That number 20, or the length of copyright, show that it's society's conventions and not rights. Instead, I treat everything as "expectations". Thousands of years ago, most people expected to hunt or farm if they wanted to eat. 500 years ago you didn't expect almost every child to survive past childbirth and the early years. Now we expect all these things and more. Clean water. Food that doesn't contain killer bacteria. Buildings that don't have obvious structural problems. Obviously we can't ensure things 100% but we as a society can work to set up organizations to regulate and oversee these things. A free market allows anyone to start cutting corners at any time, such as a new and inexperienced company that wants to make things cheaper. For example, a real estate developer can build a building that's not up to code. In theory, we could all walk around with our own subscriptions to private "auditing agencies" like Zagat for buildings, that would inspect buildings as they are built or whatever. But most of us outsource this kind of stuff to a centralized government. Which we vote for. Also, government could tax us to do unprofitable stuff such as the US Postal Service. However, the problem is that our government lacks incentives to stop growing, and we need to introduce them.

jwallaceparker 15y ago
I define "rights" as the freedom to do whatever you want with your body and property as long as you don't infringe on another's freedom to do the same. But as you say, "rights" and "expectations" are slippery slopes. > if "intellectual property" was a natural right I don't believe this is a natural right. If anything, nature shows us that there is no such thing as intellectual property. Once an idea is "out in the open" it's out there for good. > Also, government could tax us to do unprofitable stuff such as the US Postal Service. But this is a terrible thing, is it not? I'd guess at least 85% of mail is junk mail. This is only possible because mail is so cheap and the post office runs at an annual loss in the billions. Eliminate the post office. Let UPS/FedEx/whoever compete to deliver your mail. Pay $3 to mail a letter. Save trees. Eliminate junk mail. > However, the problem is that our government lacks incentives to stop growing, and we need to introduce them. I agree. I'd start with not allowing the government to print its own money. As long as it can, it will never have an incentive to stop growing.
- jarek 15y ago
  If you are advocating increased independence for the Federal Reserve (discussing the U.S. case), are you concerned that it will then grow itself to perpetuate the organization as discussed elsewhere in the comments on this post?
  - jwallaceparker 15y ago
    More likely the eradication of the Fed.
    - EGreg 15y ago
      The Ron Paul solution? How do you propose to move from the current situation to a non elastic currency backed by a combination of commodities, in a way that doesn't involve hurting a lot of people? And how would it be better?
- EGreg 15y ago
  I am not saying that "expectations" are slippery slopes, it is just the word I use to describe the situation, much like I use "government granted monopoly right" instead of "intellectual property right". I am just observing what governments do and what their purpose is supposed to be. Once we can agree on what their purpose is, then we can decide on what they should be doing, and perhaps how to make them more efficient at doing it. People today expect more from their governments than 2000 years ago. If we were talking about "rights", they would be the same throughout time. But it's more mundane than that. Anyway, "ensuring that the minimum expectations of the citizens are met" is not just for welfare states. It is for ALL governments that serve their people.

superuser2 15y ago

Life is a natural right. Ensuring that I do not die in a train crash (or because I cannot afford health insurance, or because the factory I work at takes no safety precautions, or because the market choses crash-prone passenger planes, or because some idiot who doesn't believe in spectrum ownership jams my 911 call) all fall within the umbrella of protecting life. Yet these are decried as examples of an overly invasive welfare state.