4 ms·

Yup exactly. Our default social contract gives governments a monopoly on violence, of course they’ll use it.

Eupraxias 4y ago
"Right of Force". At some point, freedom is restricted at gunpoint. Government works this way because it is logical that it do so. This is why it is critical to have government established "of, by, and for" the constituency - because even in a best-case scenario, corruption will get in the cracks and make them bigger, etc.
- pclmulqdq 4y ago
  I'm going to expose my political bias here: I think the only way to prevent the corruption and expansion is to keep the government small by limiting the amount of resources that are under its direct control. Just offering "of, by, and for" won't do it if there are millions of people on the payroll. Of course, the Somali government is very small and Somali people are very free, and they aren't doing very well either.
  - themitigating 4y ago
    Would you consider the EU to have a large amount of regulations but those countries are generally doing well. I would say there's a correlation between less government and worse living conditions on average
    - pclmulqdq 4y ago
      > I would say there's a correlation between less government and worse living conditions on average I think this is true, but I don't think the correlation is causal. Rich countries throughout history have tended to grow their governments after becoming rich by adopting social programs and trying to flex their muscle internationally. Most of Europe followed this model, as did the US.
      - themitigating 4y ago
        So post ww2 for the US? We've still one of the best counties to live in. Edit. Are you claiming social programs are created to flex your country? Do you have proof of this?
        pclmulqdq 4y ago
        I am not claiming that social programs are a flex. The military is a flex. Post WW2 for the US, post-Victorian era in the UK, post-Napoleon in France, post-Tarism in Russia, post-oil-boom in Scandanavia, etc. Countries with big social programs are still great to live in, but I only mean that the social programs and big government are clearly not part of the reason why those countries became rich. The big government is caused by the wealth, not the other way around.
        themitigating 4y ago
        That doesn't mean a big government isn't responsible for maintaining that wealth which is why I mentioned post ww2 us.
  - Eupraxias 4y ago
    Agreed. Thank you for calling me out here - I also disagreed with myself when I chose "of, by, and for", and was going to use more generic words, but thought more interesting ideas may come out with the extra salt.
  - mcguire 4y ago
    Somalia demonstrates exactly the problem with that approach: power vacuums don't last any longer than any other vacuum, if there's something around to fill it.

"Right of Force". At some point, freedom is restricted at gunpoint. Government works this way because it is logical that it do so. This is why it is critical to have government established "of, by, and for" the constituency - because even in a best-case scenario, corruption will get in the cracks and make them bigger, etc.

pclmulqdq 4y ago
I'm going to expose my political bias here: I think the only way to prevent the corruption and expansion is to keep the government small by limiting the amount of resources that are under its direct control. Just offering "of, by, and for" won't do it if there are millions of people on the payroll. Of course, the Somali government is very small and Somali people are very free, and they aren't doing very well either.
- themitigating 4y ago
  Would you consider the EU to have a large amount of regulations but those countries are generally doing well. I would say there's a correlation between less government and worse living conditions on average
  - pclmulqdq 4y ago
    > I would say there's a correlation between less government and worse living conditions on average I think this is true, but I don't think the correlation is causal. Rich countries throughout history have tended to grow their governments after becoming rich by adopting social programs and trying to flex their muscle internationally. Most of Europe followed this model, as did the US.
    - themitigating 4y ago
      So post ww2 for the US? We've still one of the best counties to live in. Edit. Are you claiming social programs are created to flex your country? Do you have proof of this?
      - pclmulqdq 4y ago
        I am not claiming that social programs are a flex. The military is a flex. Post WW2 for the US, post-Victorian era in the UK, post-Napoleon in France, post-Tarism in Russia, post-oil-boom in Scandanavia, etc. Countries with big social programs are still great to live in, but I only mean that the social programs and big government are clearly not part of the reason why those countries became rich. The big government is caused by the wealth, not the other way around.
        themitigating 4y ago
        That doesn't mean a big government isn't responsible for maintaining that wealth which is why I mentioned post ww2 us.
- Eupraxias 4y ago
  Agreed. Thank you for calling me out here - I also disagreed with myself when I chose "of, by, and for", and was going to use more generic words, but thought more interesting ideas may come out with the extra salt.
- mcguire 4y ago
  Somalia demonstrates exactly the problem with that approach: power vacuums don't last any longer than any other vacuum, if there's something around to fill it.