The Business of Government is to Promote Happiness or Business?

[georgephillip]

Wrong. The free rider problem can be eliminated simply by changing your business model.

In the same way Utilitarianism can be interpreted to preclude the Nazi perversion of eugenics.

 

[kaz]

Again to call it "defense" is pure word gaming, they meant physical protection. If you said that was defense they would have thought you were an idiot.

They would have thought both of us were idiots if we tried to explain USMB to them as well. If global warming poses a physical threat to the commons, does government have an obligation to intercede?

Calling it "defense" is idiotic and a pure game. With that preposterous reasoning you can justify anything. Anything government wants to do could be justified as defending someone from something. Cut the games if you want to have a discussion about an actual topic. Defense was the Army and Navy, not the EPA.

As for global warming. You can't argue facts with a religious extremist. You believe it because of your socialist religion. The facts aren't there, sorry. And even global warming is true, socialism won't solve it. But you believe it on faith, there is no arguing with faith. It's the justification that doesn't stop giving when it comes to socialism. Yet none of the proposals from the left are motivated to solve it or actually address it, you just want more government control over the economy and redistribution of wealth. Those don't address global warming, yet it's all you propose.

 

[georgephillip]

Calling it "defense" is idiotic and a pure game. With that preposterous reasoning you can justify anything. Anything government wants to do could be justified as defending someone from something. Cut the games if you want to have a discussion about an actual topic. Defense was the Army and Navy, not the EPA.

At the risk of OP drift, if a meteor the size of Yankee Stadium splashes down in the deepest part of the Puerto Rico Trench, would the business of the US government include defending its citizens from the meteor's consequences?

 

[kaz]

Calling it "defense" is idiotic and a pure game. With that preposterous reasoning you can justify anything. Anything government wants to do could be justified as defending someone from something. Cut the games if you want to have a discussion about an actual topic. Defense was the Army and Navy, not the EPA.

At the risk of OP drift, if a meteor the size of Yankee Stadium splashes down in the deepest part of the Puerto Rico Trench, would the business of the US government include defending its citizens from the meteor's consequences?

Not under "defense." Katrina wasn't "defense." The California earthquake wasn't "defense." Hurricanes are not "defense." Grow up.

By your use of the term "defense," give me an example of something that the Federal government would not be able to do under that rationale. Obviously there is nothing. And that leads to the question why write a Constitution at all if one of the powers of government is anything they want?

Here's a clear one for you. Abortion is a power of the Federal Government. Defense of the unborn. The war on drugs? Defense of non-drug users from criminals who steal to get them.

 

[georgephillip]

Those markets were no more "primitive" than the markets that existed after the state came into being. Markets develop over time, whether they are state controlled and manipulated or not.

Maybe we should limit the discussion to "modern" markets?
"The origins of the market are obscure, but substantial documentary evidence survives from the eleventh century onward, when chartered markets and new towns were established across Western Europe.

"The expansion of the market system is important for business history because it created new opportunities for business growth. There has been no systematic literature review on market evolution since Henri Pirenne and Raymond de Roover, and this article attempts to fi ll the gap.

"It shows that successful markets were regulated— often by civic authorities—to maintain a reputation for reasonable prices and quality control. Markets were located at both transport hubs and centers of consumption, even when the latter were quite remote. However, as transport and communication costs declined, shakeouts occurred and only the larger markets survived.

"According to Adam Smith, 'The division of labour is limited by...'"

http://www.hbs.edu/businesshistory/documents/origin-and-development-of-markets.pdf

 

[georgephillip]

ot under "defense." Katrina wasn't "defense." The California earthquake wasn't "defense." Hurricanes are not "defense." Grow up.

The Pentagon currently argues climate change represents a "threat multiplier" possessing the power to "exacerbate" many defense challenges faced by the US today. Unless you are claiming the founders knew better two hundred years ago, how else would empirical phenomena like changing precipitation patterns, rising sea levels, and more extreme weather events be viewed if not as threats to national defense?
Pentagon Climate change a national security threat TheHill

 

[georgephillip]

By your use of the term "defense," give me an example of something that the Federal government would not be able to do under that rationale. Obviously there is nothing.

Maybe so, but it's also possible I lack the knowledge/imagination to produce a logical response:
"The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that essentially relies on a lack of imagination in the audience.

"The general form of the argument is as follows.

• Minor premise: One can't imagine (or has not imagined) how P could be so.
• Major premise (unstated): If P, then one could imagine (or would have imagined) how P could be so.
• Conclusion: Not-P."

Argument from incredulity - RationalWiki

 

[Contumacious]

Capital should serve the people, people shouldn't serve capital, just increasing GDP should not be the goal in of itself. Obviously sound economic policy should be a concern of the government, and policy should be centered on serving the national interest. .

Wuuuuuuuuuuut?

read post #96 then , and only then, repost.

.

 

[bripat9643]

Wrong. The free rider problem can be eliminated simply by changing your business model.

In the same way Utilitarianism can be interpreted to preclude the Nazi perversion of eugenics.

That's the problem with utilitarianism: it can be interpreted any way you want. The Nazis justified putting Jews into gas ovens on the basis that it was for the greatest good for the greatest number.

 

[bripat9643]

ot under "defense." Katrina wasn't "defense." The California earthquake wasn't "defense." Hurricanes are not "defense." Grow up.

The Pentagon currently argues climate change represents a "threat multiplier" possessing the power to "exacerbate" many defense challenges faced by the US today. Unless you are claiming the founders knew better two hundred years ago, how else would empirical phenomena like changing precipitation patterns, rising sea levels, and more extreme weather events be viewed if not as threats to national defense?
Pentagon Climate change a national security threat TheHill

The military is populated by political hacks who are happy to do Obama's bidding if that's what it takes to get promoted or keep their jobs.

 

[bripat9643]

Those markets were no more "primitive" than the markets that existed after the state came into being. Markets develop over time, whether they are state controlled and manipulated or not.

Maybe we should limit the discussion to "modern" markets?
"The origins of the market are obscure, but substantial documentary evidence survives from the eleventh century onward, when chartered markets and new towns were established across Western Europe.

"The expansion of the market system is important for business history because it created new opportunities for business growth. There has been no systematic literature review on market evolution since Henri Pirenne and Raymond de Roover, and this article attempts to fi ll the gap.

"It shows that successful markets were regulated— often by civic authorities—to maintain a reputation for reasonable prices and quality control. Markets were located at both transport hubs and centers of consumption, even when the latter were quite remote. However, as transport and communication costs declined, shakeouts occurred and only the larger markets survived.

"According to Adam Smith, 'The division of labour is limited by...'"

http://www.hbs.edu/businesshistory/documents/origin-and-development-of-markets.pdf

So let's determine of markets need government regulation by examining only markets that were government regulated. Yeah, that's perfectly logical.

BTW, regulation of prices has always proved to be a colossal failure, so I don't understand were you get the idea that "successful markets" had price regulation.

 

[bripat9643]

Calling it "defense" is idiotic and a pure game. With that preposterous reasoning you can justify anything. Anything government wants to do could be justified as defending someone from something. Cut the games if you want to have a discussion about an actual topic. Defense was the Army and Navy, not the EPA.

At the risk of OP drift, if a meteor the size of Yankee Stadium splashes down in the deepest part of the Puerto Rico Trench, would the business of the US government include defending its citizens from the meteor's consequences?

Once it hits the earth, there is little any government could to prevent the consequences.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Great.. another lefty numbnut eschewing the virtues of government as Mommy & Daddy.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

For Jeremy Bentham the answer was happiness which he defined as the overall happiness created for everyone affected by an action.
"I. The business of government is to promote the happiness of the society, by punishing and rewarding. That part of its business which consists in punishing, is more particularly the subject of penal law. In proportion as an act tends to disturb that happiness, in proportion as the tendency of it is pernicious, will be the demand it creates for punishment. What happiness consists of we have already seen: enjoyment of pleasures, security from pains."
Jeremy Bentham An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation Chapter VII Library of Economics and Liberty

Neither

 

[PoliticalChic]

The role of government is to allow the PURSUIT of happiness, not to guarantee that everyone will find it.

The role of government is to get out of the way of business and let the free market, supply and demand, and individual hard work drive success (or failure).

"just get the hell out of my way" John Galt to the government in Atlas Shrugged.

Prior to FDR the presumption of government was to produce the conditions for the "pursuit of happiness." FDR said, "why stop there, the federal government can produce happiness" ( understood as material well-being ) thus the New Deal, road to socialism and ruination of the principles the Founders spent much time on, in their famous U.S. Constitution, that is now almost up in flames. Obammy is fast closing it out, completely. We poor hard-working sucking taxpayers.

Often misquoted as ‘The business of America is business,” Coolidge really said:

“...After all, the chief business of the American people is business. They are profoundly concerned with producing, buying, selling, investing and prospering in the world. I am strongly of opinion that the great majority of people will always find these are moving impulses of our life. …

Wealth is the product of industry, ambition, character and untiring effort. In all experience, the accumulation of wealth means the multiplication of schools, the increase of knowledge, the dissemination of intelligence, the encouragement of science, the broadening of outlook, the expansion of liberties, the widening of culture.

Of course, the accumulation of wealth cannot be justified as the chief end of existence. But we are compelled to recognize it as a means to well-nigh every desirable achievement. So long as wealth is made the means and not the end, we need not greatly fear it.”
January 17, 1925 Given before the American Society of Newspaper Editors

 

[kaz]

ot under "defense." Katrina wasn't "defense." The California earthquake wasn't "defense." Hurricanes are not "defense." Grow up.

The Pentagon currently argues climate change represents a "threat multiplier" possessing the power to "exacerbate" many defense challenges faced by the US today. Unless you are claiming the founders knew better two hundred years ago, how else would empirical phenomena like changing precipitation patterns, rising sea levels, and more extreme weather events be viewed if not as threats to national defense?
Pentagon Climate change a national security threat TheHill

The cost of steel affects our national defense, so we can nationalize the steel industry under defense. And again, people are murdering children by aborting them, we can ban abortions as defense.

No, defense means to defend our borders and Americans from foreign threats.

 

[kaz]

By your use of the term "defense," give me an example of something that the Federal government would not be able to do under that rationale. Obviously there is nothing.

Maybe so, but it's also possible I lack the knowledge/imagination to produce a logical response:
"The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that essentially relies on a lack of imagination in the audience.

"The general form of the argument is as follows.

• Minor premise: One can't imagine (or has not imagined) how P could be so.
• Major premise (unstated): If P, then one could imagine (or would have imagined) how P could be so.
• Conclusion: Not-P."

Argument from incredulity - RationalWiki

That's a great example of a fallacy I didn't commit. I made a well formed argument that you can justify anything since you set the standard that defense is defending anyone from anything. Everything government does could be put in terms of someone is being defended against by something. That doesn't rely on your "imagination," all issues can be framed that way. Someone benefits. We are defending them.

Obama is not King, we are defending him from being forced by office by creating a monarchy. I asked you that question that way to prove a point, and I did. Your defense that you're a dullard was on you, not a fallacy by me.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

"The Business of Government is to Promote Happiness or Business?"

Neither.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

liberals believe that "promote the general welfare" means take care of everyone from birth to death, except unborn children that is.

No they don't

They believe in helping people who need help

By enslaving them in generational poverty...

 

[Sonny Clark]

"The Business of Government is to Promote Happiness or Business?"

Neither.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

liberals believe that "promote the general welfare" means take care of everyone from birth to death, except unborn children that is.

No they don't

They believe in helping people who need help

By enslaving them in generational poverty...

Government debt has already enslaved many future generations of Americans. $18Trillion is a big number, and it's growing as we speak.

 

[georgephillip]

No, defense means to defend our borders and Americans from foreign threats.

Defense from threats foreign and domestic, actually. The epidemic of mortgage fraud that nearly crashed the global economy six years ago is a greater threat to this country than radical Islam ever will be. The current gap between the richest Americans and the majority also qualifies as a crisis for all those not lost like naive trolls in the 18th century.