4 ms·

And you believe it is ethical to use threats of violence to force me to pay for those Sidewalks Because that is what voting for it does. All government actions

And you believe it is ethical to use threats of violence to force me to pay for those Sidewalks Because that is what voting for it does. All government actions are backed by the threat of violence if you do not comply

paulryanrogers 4y ago
Yes. I believe only the threat of violence will overcome the selfishness that creates prisoner dilemmas. Dilemas such as funding public education, safe road and walkways, police, fire, and healthcare services. Even those who disagree would probably change their mind after a few years without such services.
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  At least your honest most people attempt to deny the basic reality of government. Now the question is why do you believe the government force is not only the best but the only way to provide "public education, safe road and walkways, police, fire, and healthcare services." because not only do I not agree that government is needed for society to have those things, government providing them is of lower quality, especially in the case of "education" i.e schools, and police.
  - wittycardio 4y ago
    [dead]
  - paulryanrogers 4y ago
    History is my guide. Private towns, money, police, armies, schools, healthcare have largely been a disaster. Exceptions exist where private enterprise has sometimes worked better than government. And today we even have corporations so rich and influencial they are defacto governments. Ultimately I believe collective action and a monopoly on violence is best. Therefore a government, even if by another name, is the answer. Ideally one responsive to the people they rule.
    - phpisthebest 4y ago
      >>History is my guide. as it is for me, and governments are a disaster. I am unclear how you can look at governments in history and not see a pattern of abuse, dysfunction, corruption, and over all terrible evil >>And today we even have corporations so rich and influencial they are defacto governments. Why do we have these mega corporations? I believe it is because of government, decades of regulatory capture by companies have made it impossible to be in business with out being a huge company these regulatory protectionist policies are what is driving out small business and the competition. you see companies as the root of the evil.. I see beyond the companies and see their protectors the State as the root cause of this evil >>Ideally one responsive to the people they rule. Many problems here, even your terminology betrays your goals for if a government "rules over" the people the people by definition have no power over that government. Violence is never "best", Using governmental force to impose a vision on others is intellectual sloth and typically results in unintended, perverse consequences.
      - paulryanrogers 4y ago
        Where governments are weak there have been company towns, mafia like pseudo-governments, and much violence and exploitation. Corporations without oversight tend toward these same traits. Regulatory capture is a sign of bad government, not that less oversight is always best. Government is just a way to organize collective power and action against the forces in the world that would trample the weak. Some in power are corrupt, that doesn't mean the invisible hand of the market is the answer to magic away all ills. It means we need responsive, representative, and well regulating government to maintain healthy and competitive markets. This government will need a monopoly on violence or else it becomes a war among the powerful with everyone else caught in the middle. BTW I never said violence is best. Violence is unavoidable if disagreements cannot be solved by any other means. Rather my point is it should be monopolized under a government, not left to vigilantes and the whomever owns the most guns.
mitthrowaway2 4y ago
> All government actions are backed by the threat of violence if you do not comply You say that like it's a bad thing. Would you prefer the violence was not a threat? Or would you prefer that compliance with law were made optional?

paulryanrogers 4y ago

Yes. I believe only the threat of violence will overcome the selfishness that creates prisoner dilemmas. Dilemas such as funding public education, safe road and walkways, police, fire, and healthcare services. Even those who disagree would probably change their mind after a few years without such services.

phpisthebest 4y ago
At least your honest most people attempt to deny the basic reality of government. Now the question is why do you believe the government force is not only the best but the only way to provide "public education, safe road and walkways, police, fire, and healthcare services." because not only do I not agree that government is needed for society to have those things, government providing them is of lower quality, especially in the case of "education" i.e schools, and police.
- wittycardio 4y ago
  [dead]
- paulryanrogers 4y ago
  History is my guide. Private towns, money, police, armies, schools, healthcare have largely been a disaster. Exceptions exist where private enterprise has sometimes worked better than government. And today we even have corporations so rich and influencial they are defacto governments. Ultimately I believe collective action and a monopoly on violence is best. Therefore a government, even if by another name, is the answer. Ideally one responsive to the people they rule.
  - phpisthebest 4y ago
    >>History is my guide. as it is for me, and governments are a disaster. I am unclear how you can look at governments in history and not see a pattern of abuse, dysfunction, corruption, and over all terrible evil >>And today we even have corporations so rich and influencial they are defacto governments. Why do we have these mega corporations? I believe it is because of government, decades of regulatory capture by companies have made it impossible to be in business with out being a huge company these regulatory protectionist policies are what is driving out small business and the competition. you see companies as the root of the evil.. I see beyond the companies and see their protectors the State as the root cause of this evil >>Ideally one responsive to the people they rule. Many problems here, even your terminology betrays your goals for if a government "rules over" the people the people by definition have no power over that government. Violence is never "best", Using governmental force to impose a vision on others is intellectual sloth and typically results in unintended, perverse consequences.
    - paulryanrogers 4y ago
      Where governments are weak there have been company towns, mafia like pseudo-governments, and much violence and exploitation. Corporations without oversight tend toward these same traits. Regulatory capture is a sign of bad government, not that less oversight is always best. Government is just a way to organize collective power and action against the forces in the world that would trample the weak. Some in power are corrupt, that doesn't mean the invisible hand of the market is the answer to magic away all ills. It means we need responsive, representative, and well regulating government to maintain healthy and competitive markets. This government will need a monopoly on violence or else it becomes a war among the powerful with everyone else caught in the middle. BTW I never said violence is best. Violence is unavoidable if disagreements cannot be solved by any other means. Rather my point is it should be monopolized under a government, not left to vigilantes and the whomever owns the most guns.

mitthrowaway2 4y ago

> All government actions are backed by the threat of violence if you do not comply You say that like it's a bad thing. Would you prefer the violence was not a threat? Or would you prefer that compliance with law were made optional?