3 ms·

The US tends to see the role of government to secure rights and freedoms for its citizens, more than to create social safety nets. That’s one of the founding pr

The US tends to see the role of government to secure rights and freedoms for its citizens, more than to create social safety nets. That’s one of the founding principles of the country. Not that social safety nets are bad, but I say that is not the primary purpose of civilized society.

Swizec 4y ago
What better way to ensure freedom than to give everyone the chance to take risks without fear of destitution?
avidphantasm 4y ago
Having your private property rights enforced by police is an instance of a social safety net. It’s helping you do things that would be much harder or impossible to do by yourself. So is modern agriculture, medicine, engineering, etc.
- greesil 4y ago
  Protecting private property is a necessary part of a market economy. I wouldn't call it a safety net. The whole point of a safety net is when your livelihood goes poof you don't freefall into the abyss. Should you sell your home when an AI automates your job? These are orthogonal concepts.
anigbrowl 4y ago
The US is what happens when a small group of economic/political competitors get a thinly-populated continent for free. The rights and freedoms emphasis makes total sense in a context where you have what seem like unlimited resources by individual human standards. World population in 1776 was under 1 billion and in Europe it was about 150m, or 1/3 of today's. It's unwise for Americans to stay so mentally anchored to this origin story. It's not that it doesn't have value, but it has increasingly less to do with reality because it depends on a condition of superabundance that no longer obtains.
- celeritascelery 4y ago
  You make an interesting point. But I don’t see why the governments role to secure rights and freedoms for its citizens would change with fewer natural resources per person. Certainly the nature of rights may change as new technologies develop (do artists have the rights to AI generated art trained on their works, etc) but the principle still seem the same.
  - anigbrowl 4y ago
    Look back at our original comment to see how it necessarily expands when resources are not superabundant.

Swizec 4y ago

What better way to ensure freedom than to give everyone the chance to take risks without fear of destitution?

avidphantasm 4y ago

Having your private property rights enforced by police is an instance of a social safety net. It’s helping you do things that would be much harder or impossible to do by yourself. So is modern agriculture, medicine, engineering, etc.

greesil 4y ago
Protecting private property is a necessary part of a market economy. I wouldn't call it a safety net. The whole point of a safety net is when your livelihood goes poof you don't freefall into the abyss. Should you sell your home when an AI automates your job? These are orthogonal concepts.

anigbrowl 4y ago

The US is what happens when a small group of economic/political competitors get a thinly-populated continent for free. The rights and freedoms emphasis makes total sense in a context where you have what seem like unlimited resources by individual human standards. World population in 1776 was under 1 billion and in Europe it was about 150m, or 1/3 of today's. It's unwise for Americans to stay so mentally anchored to this origin story. It's not that it doesn't have value, but it has increasingly less to do with reality because it depends on a condition of superabundance that no longer obtains.

celeritascelery 4y ago
You make an interesting point. But I don’t see why the governments role to secure rights and freedoms for its citizens would change with fewer natural resources per person. Certainly the nature of rights may change as new technologies develop (do artists have the rights to AI generated art trained on their works, etc) but the principle still seem the same.
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  Look back at our original comment to see how it necessarily expands when resources are not superabundant.