Good government vs Big government

[manifold]

Manifold, I understand you have rigid standards for what's discuss-able. But I did not even attempt to answer your question so it's odd to hear you write as if I tried but didn't pass. Furthermore I do not treat threads as if I am only allowed to discuss within a narrow framework. This is not an undergraduate course, it's the internet. This framework obviously stifles otherwise fruitful conversation.

I respect your method but sharply disagree. Obviously I'm not promoting a product or speaking non-sense. My post came organically from the flow of the thread and I addressed pertinent questions that are entangled with the OP. Nothing exists in isolation and though it can be helpful to treat topics in isolation this method is beneficial for those who know little about the topic and so are rigidly guided through it. Perhaps I'm way off base here.

Either way, your question whether government is one thing to all people (pornography) or is many things to many people (beauty/beholder) is a meaningless question. Government works for some in some ways and doesn't work for others (or even the same people) in other ways. These can be plotted on a continuous spectrum and no one person's way the government treats them is the same way all people are treated.

If you want to ask when is government good we must again understand this in terms of plurality. There are a great many things the government can do that is good to some people and precisely for that reason be bad for others. So what group are you trying to isolate and hear since I take it that is your method? I think it's a good question but is not to be determined in any absolute or universal sense so long as government favors certain groups thereby disfavoring others (the planet is not infinite and when someone claims x and the government favors their claim, the total available has now reduced to a fraction of what was available before and the rest of the population is left with less). Again, nothing happens in isolation in our finite world and thus favoring some forgoes the claim of others, putting them in disfavor.

Don't get too hung up on the beautiful porn thing, what I'm really trying to understand better, and using your spectrum analogy, is how to evaluate where a particular bill, or even a particular politician, fall on the spectrum... closer to good or closer to big (i.e. not good).

How do you suss it out?

 

[gnarlylove]

I'll respond to the bold portion of your post now. You say that there was no violence or coercion involved in you receiving benefits from the government, as they obviously did not commit aggression against you in giving you these benefits. However, you're only looking at one end of the equation: What about the people that the government took the money from to provide you with those benefits? Clearly aggression was committed against them as they had their rightful property forcefully taken from them. Now let me be clear that I am not castigating you for accepting benefits or claiming that you personally engaged in violence in receiving them, but that is how welfare benefits are every bit as violent and coercive as any other government act. They rest on the ability of the government to take from one group of people to give to another.

You missed my point. I agree with you by your definition of government. There can be literally no discussion when you define government as necessarily being violent/aggressive.

That's why I said this will not work for my purpose of understanding really existing government. You are equivocating on the term government and REG. Your conception of government is that its acts are necessarily anti-freedom in one way or another. They exist in order to collect taxes which is inherently an anti-freedom activity, according to you.

But that's frankly absurd. Paying taxes may not be our most prized activity, but you have to rise above this cultural phenomena in America where taxes are evil, anti-liberty and a petition is signed to never raise taxes ever again (despite this flying in the face of all sensible economics). Your conception of the government hinges on this culture of fanatical liberty that does not exist and would be very destructive. I have not read Rauthbard extensively but having learned a bit his world is categorically dystopian. But leaving all these topics which cannot be discussed here due to some imposed rule, I ask you recognize your definitions and do not confuse them with what really exists. I'm not saying I have the right view points and entirely open to critical analysis of them, but it doesn't take very much to simply examine really existing government. It is an empirical claim and can be verified empirically. So I ask you to examine REG with me.

So taxes outside America are considerably higher. I know taxes, according to you are an absolute infringement upon freedom, but that is just your viewpoint. Empirically, how does the rest of the world view taxes? Most citizens who are taxed are aware that the 10-45% of their pay is going towards keeping their property safe by paying the police force, keeping the country safe by defense, servicing roads, subsidizing oil, solar, helping drug addicts stay off the street by clinics thereby committing less crime and keeping society safer etc.

The downfall of taxes is that if you are taxed and by that 13% you can not afford that extra vacation. Surely this is infringing upon your freedom. But to isolate this as the only consideration is injustice. There are a variety of results from taxation that elevate society into a more civilized arena. I'm not saying any of this is done with pure results, naturally corruption is in each of these areas (but why does corruption exist? Because people feel the need to benefit themselves when they can and disregard the effects this has on the society without which they nor any business can exist.

So what really exists is a sort of good and bad result from taxation. None of it is pure but to think literally nothing redeeming comes from taxation is a really narrow and egotistical view that simply cannot exist in a society at large. For if everyone is trying to one up everyone else and get for themselves, where is there room for genuine law and morality? There is none. Thus, I think your liberty of the individual egoist sort is highly dystopian and can never work on a meaningful scale (community). To engage in solely self-maximizing behavior is to ignore the effects of your transactions on those around you. This is diametrically opposed to our finite world where in order to sustain populations we must defer our whims and adhere to the classical liberal principle by Mill which roughly states liberty is the ability to do anything until it harms another or infringes upon their rights. The trouble is corporations have many rights that people don't have and certain people have rights while others like indigenous populations have never been granted rights in a meaningful sense and are to this day being driven from their land in Maylasia and all over the globe. Thus, the only way I can make sense of your view of liberty is if you define persons as mostly white American rich males and everyone else is infringing upon their rights to plunder the earth and garner its riches. I don't think you believe that but I have trouble making sense of it any other way when you look at how the world exists instead of idealized mythical versions.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I'll respond to the bold portion of your post now. You say that there was no violence or coercion involved in you receiving benefits from the government, as they obviously did not commit aggression against you in giving you these benefits. However, you're only looking at one end of the equation: What about the people that the government took the money from to provide you with those benefits? Clearly aggression was committed against them as they had their rightful property forcefully taken from them. Now let me be clear that I am not castigating you for accepting benefits or claiming that you personally engaged in violence in receiving them, but that is how welfare benefits are every bit as violent and coercive as any other government act. They rest on the ability of the government to take from one group of people to give to another.

You missed my point. I agree with you by your definition of government. There can be literally no discussion when you define government as necessarily being violent/aggressive.

That's why I said this will not work for my purpose of understanding really existing government. You are equivocating on the term government and REG. Your conception of government is that its acts are necessarily anti-freedom in one way or another. They exist in order to collect taxes which is inherently an anti-freedom activity, according to you.

But that's frankly absurd. Paying taxes may not be our most prized activity, but you have to rise above this cultural phenomena in America where taxes are evil, anti-liberty and a petition is signed to never raise taxes ever again (despite this flying in the face of all sensible economics). Your conception of the government hinges on this culture of fanatical liberty that does not exist and would be very destructive. I have not read Rauthbard extensively but having learned a bit his world is categorically dystopian. But leaving all these topics which cannot be discussed here due to some imposed rule, I ask you recognize your definitions and do not confuse them with what really exists. I'm not saying I have the right view points and entirely open to critical analysis of them, but it doesn't take very much to simply examine really existing government. It is an empirical claim and can be verified empirically. So I ask you to examine REG with me.

So taxes outside America are considerably higher. I know taxes, according to you are an absolute infringement upon freedom, but that is just your viewpoint. Empirically, how does the rest of the world view taxes? Most citizens who are taxed are aware that the 10-45% of their pay is going towards keeping their property safe by paying the police force, keeping the country safe by defense, servicing roads, subsidizing oil, solar, helping drug addicts stay off the street by clinics thereby committing less crime and keeping society safer etc.

The downfall of taxes is that if you are taxed and by that 13% you can not afford that extra vacation. Surely this is infringing upon your freedom. But to isolate this as the only consideration is injustice. There are a variety of results from taxation that elevate society into a more civilized arena. I'm not saying any of this is done with pure results, naturally corruption is in each of these areas (but why does corruption exist? Because people feel the need to benefit themselves when they can and disregard the effects this has on the society without which they nor any business can exist.

So what really exists is a sort of good and bad result from taxation. None of it is pure but to think literally nothing redeeming comes from taxation is a really narrow and egotistical view that simply cannot exist in a society at large. For if everyone is trying to one up everyone else and get for themselves, where is there room for genuine law and morality? There is none. Thus, I think your liberty of the individual egoist sort is highly dystopian and can never work on a meaningful scale (community). To engage in solely self-maximizing behavior is to ignore the effects of your transactions on those around you. This is diametrically opposed to our finite world where in order to sustain populations we must defer our whims and adhere to the classical liberal principle by Mill which roughly states liberty is the ability to do anything until it harms another or infringes upon their rights. The trouble is corporations have many rights that people don't have and certain people have rights while others like indigenous populations have never been granted rights in a meaningful sense and are to this day being driven from their land in Maylasia and all over the globe. Thus, the only way I can make sense of your view of liberty is if you define persons as mostly white American rich males and everyone else is infringing upon their rights to plunder the earth and garner its riches. I don't think you believe that but I have trouble making sense of it any other way when you look at how the world exists instead of idealized mythical versions.

It would seem to me that you're essentially saying here that I have to give up my own opinions and positions, which you claim are "absurd" or "dystopian," and that I have to argue from a base point which you specify to be "realistic." That's not how a discussion works, however. You can disagree with my viewpoints, and you can choose not to address them, but you can't simply dismiss them claiming that your views are more "realistic" or "empirical," which is nonsense. There is no objective truth here, we can only make our own subjective arguments.

 

[gnarlylove]

How do you suss it out?

I assume you're asking my personal opinion since I do not think government can be as a matter of fact good to all people since it favors some thereby disfavoring others. If we lived in an infinite world where infinite growth were possible, I'd be wrong but we live in a finite world. Many will disagree with how I suss it out and rightfully so according to their experiences and limited information. But personally, we can determine what is good by looking at how a program benefits the public. While I don't pay much attention to the hollow notion of cost/benefit analysis, the more people that are benefited as a result of policy, the better it becomes.

Thus, as a matter of numerology, we can say government is good when it benefits over half of its population. However, this size of government fetish is really peculiar to post-industrial societies. It is not a very useful tool for gauging how well the society is doing. Currently we see policies that benefit about 10% of the population while holding the majority to market standards. They don't accept markets for themselves cause when they go bust, so goes the whole world and so they don't believe in free markets and have not for over 100 years now. Markets are only useful for those who you want to plunder. You force them to certain disciplines and laws but exempt yourself.

I want to say the size of government does not matter for it is only an afterthought of the architects of policy. And the important question is who are the architects and do average citizens have influence in this policy making? The serious answer is no the average citizen cannot vote against Goldman Sachs and Koch brothers and a narrow group of people who fund most of the political campaigns. There is no voting against Goldman's Sachs use of their speech (i.e. money). We simply must try to combat it with our money (speech) which is vapid considering the average household debt as a percent of income is 125%.

So the size of government is a tertiary gauge for how the architects have designed it. The important and interesting question is what policy actually exists and how does it effect people differently? A walk down the street and cross the railroad tracks in any city will reveal that answer. A few are favored at the expense of the masses. I hate to repeat it but the 85 richest people own equivalent wealth of 3.5 billion people according to a study by Oxfam. That is a definite and all too real result of the interests of the architects of policy.

 

[gnarlylove]

It would seem to me that you're essentially saying here that I have to give up my own opinions and positions, which you claim are "absurd" or "dystopian," and that I have to argue from a base point which you specify to be "realistic." That's not how a discussion works, however. You can disagree with my viewpoints, and you can choose not to address them, but you can't simply dismiss them claiming that your views are more "realistic" or "empirical," which is nonsense. There is no objective truth here, we can only make our own subjective arguments.

While you rationally stated how you felt, it is a poor approach. I don't think objective truth is determinable by human beings either but if you think the empirical world of science is to be dismissed because it lacks absolute certainty, then we can never have common ground on which to discuss. But clearly we do. We live on planet earth in the milky way galaxy. We live in America under a certain set of policies and a variety of outcomes.

My hope is that you would agree that we have these things in common like existing in the 21st century and thus would be able to ask what those policies and outcomes are. I factually delineated a few outcomes of taxation and instead of addressing them, you dismiss me entirely. That sounds fairly radical way of interaction and a impractical way for finding obvious agreement.

Really existing taxes have a variety of outcomes and many exist to improve the conditions of freedom by addressing limits on those conditions. I know you think taxes are 100% bad but this is just false. Do you think roads, education and the police force are 100% infringement upon freedom? That is empirically false. Oftentimes these things help set up the conditions for freedom to be experienced. Freedom does not exist in a vaccum and there are conditions under which freedom can be realized and if those conditions are not tended to then freedom cannot exist properly as you probably know better than I.

edit: perhaps you are very sensitive to belief. Let me assure you I do not think the views which you have called "mine" are mine in any important way. They are subject to empirical verification and if taxes do not support education, I am willing to listen to why this is so and readily change the belief. But as I understand the world, taxes verifiably support education which supports conditions of freedom. This is not my view per se as I would not be opposed to changing it as long as you offered a sensible reason, which is not much to ask since you are clearly intelligent.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It would seem to me that you're essentially saying here that I have to give up my own opinions and positions, which you claim are "absurd" or "dystopian," and that I have to argue from a base point which you specify to be "realistic." That's not how a discussion works, however. You can disagree with my viewpoints, and you can choose not to address them, but you can't simply dismiss them claiming that your views are more "realistic" or "empirical," which is nonsense. There is no objective truth here, we can only make our own subjective arguments.

While you rationally stated how you felt, it is a poor approach. I don't think objective truth is determinable by human beings either but if you think the empirical world of science is to be dismissed because it lacks absolute certainty, then we can never have common ground on which to discuss. But clearly we do. We live on planet earth in the milky way galaxy. We live in America under a certain set of policies and a variety of outcomes.

My hope is that you would agree that we have these things in common like existing in the 21st century and thus would be able to ask what those policies and outcomes are. I factually delineated a few outcomes of taxation and instead of addressing them, you dismiss me entirely. That sounds fairly radical way of interaction and a impractical way for finding obvious agreement.

Really existing taxes have a variety of outcomes and many exist to improve the conditions of freedom by addressing limits on those conditions. I know you think taxes are 100% bad but this is just false. Do you think roads, education and the police force are 100% infringement upon freedom? That is empirically false. Oftentimes these things help set up the conditions for freedom to be experienced. Freedom does not exist in a vaccum and there are conditions under which freedom can be realized and if those conditions are not tended to then freedom cannot exist properly as you probably know better than I.

edit: perhaps you are very sensitive to belief. Let me assure you I do not think the views which you have called "mine" are mine in any important way. They are subject to empirical verification and if taxes do not support education, I am willing to listen to why this is so and readily change the belief. But as I understand the world, taxes verifiably support education which supports conditions of freedom. This is not my view per se as I would not be opposed to changing it as long as you offered a sensible reason, which is not much to ask since you are clearly intelligent.

How can it be "empirically false" to state that by engaging in taxation to pay for these things, roads, education, etc..., the State is engaging in violence, and is thus "bad?" Are there scientific studies showing that taxation is moral? How would that even be possible?

 

[dblack]

I think the 'big' government moniker is misleading. It's the scope of government that is at issue. Government should be big enough to meet its (limited) responsibilities effectively.

 

[gnarlylove]

How can it be "empirically false" to state that by engaging in taxation to pay for these things, roads, education, etc..., the State is engaging in violence, and is thus "bad?" Are there scientific studies showing that taxation is moral? How would that even be possible?

My claim is taxation has a variety of outcomes. One of its outcomes is education. That is empirically verifiable. You can check the money flow or credit flow from the taxed income to the government to the school system in my local neighborhood. I do not see where violence is applied here. Do you care to elaborate? Does it have to do with depriving someone of their property (money)?

And as for scientific studies of morality, yes, it is quite possible. I won't speculate whether your specific question fits into the frame of empirical but morality is real and observable. [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Elements-Moral-Cognition-Linguistic-Cognitive/dp/0521855780]Elements of Moral Cognition: Rawls' Linguistic Analogy and the Cognitive Science of Moral and Legal Judgment: John Mikhail: 9780521855785: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]
https://blogs.commons.georgetown.edu/johnmikhail/

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

How can it be "empirically false" to state that by engaging in taxation to pay for these things, roads, education, etc..., the State is engaging in violence, and is thus "bad?" Are there scientific studies showing that taxation is moral? How would that even be possible?

My claim is taxation has a variety of outcomes. One of its outcomes is education. That is empirically verifiable. You can check the money flow or credit flow from the taxed income to the government to the school system in my local neighborhood. I do not see where violence is applied here. Do you care to elaborate? Does it have to do with depriving someone of their property (money)?

And as for scientific studies of morality, yes, it is quite possible. I won't speculate whether your specific question fits into the frame of empirical but morality is real and observable. [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Elements-Moral-Cognition-Linguistic-Cognitive/dp/0521855780]Elements of Moral Cognition: Rawls' Linguistic Analogy and the Cognitive Science of Moral and Legal Judgment: John Mikhail: 9780521855785: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]
https://blogs.commons.georgetown.edu/johnmikhail/

Empiricism is based on actual science. It is an empirical fact that if you throw a ball in the air that it will inevitably come down because of gravity. There is no empirical test of morality. It is purely subjective.

Yes, it is verifiable that taxation can go towards education. It is not, however, verifiable that this is the only way to fund education, nor is it verifiable to say that it is empirically moral to provide education in this way. It is, in my opinion, violent to take money away from some people to provide education for others. You can't empirically prove that I'm wrong, but you can argue that I'm wrong from your point of view.

 

[gnarlylove]

I am no fan of your assertion regarding morality. You should at least keep an open mind until you read that book or similar arguments. It may be wrong but your method of re-asserting your belief is a faux pas, a mere habit of belief, not a critical belief. Like you said there is no objective reality we can all agree to so I would not be so sure that initial belief is the best or right belief. I find that is virtually never the case.

So we can agree taxation works. It may not be the preferred method but it works in helping set conditions for freedom to thrive. It is odd how there's never been a completely privatized educational system for basic education as a child. It doesn't mean much but it is something to ponder.

Why do you think privatized systems are the way to go? Because of efficiency?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I am no fan of your assertion regarding morality. You should at least keep an open mind until you read that book or similar arguments. It may be wrong but your method of re-asserting your belief is a faux pas, a mere habit of belief, not a critical belief. Like you said there is no objective reality we can all agree to so I would not be so sure that initial belief is the best or right belief. I find that is virtually never the case.

So we can agree taxation works. It may not be the preferred method but it works in helping set conditions for freedom to thrive. It is odd how there's never been a completely privatized educational system for basic education as a child. It doesn't mean much but it is something to ponder.

Why do you think privatized systems are the way to go? Because of efficiency?

We can agree that taxation works the same way we can agree that theft in general or murder works. The topic, however, is good government versus big government, and I have explained why I believe that there is no such thing as good government. Yes, we can argue that government in inefficient, and say that it is then "bad" from that perspective. I, however, chose to go with a moral argument.

 

[gnarlylove]

So government, which is a cornerstone of our civilization (it doesn't have to be but de facto is), should not exist. I agree, perhaps with a different justification in mind. But doesn't it feel a little odd to say that in spite of your abilities (which are surely great) and limited freedoms (which are quite expansive as you can be across the globe in 24 hours if you like) that running through the heart of life is violence? This just doesn't cohere with experience. Few people cry "help me" when they pay a sales tax because it does not threaten their survival in any meaningful way. They know it serves a function and works enough to create a relatively free society and so is in no way is akin to murder. Murder is the absence of life. You are being deprived nothing of the sort. Your deprivation is a mere fraction of what you need to survive. So crying murder is a joke at best and at worst lacks perspective. The abstraction of the state murdering someone is just that: an abstraction. You call the partly good and partly bad empirical world of government we live under as one lump sum of evil. How can society even begin to function if at the core there is principled violence as you discuss? You are ignoring the fact that without this state, you have no protection of rights and private property. That the government helps create the conditions of society to partially flourish and yet you cry "murder" as if you were under the most oppressive tyranny on this planet. What a lack of perspective!

Can society exist without laws? Once you remove the state, how do we keep certain groups from overtaking and raping others? How do you propose protection of property?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So government, which is a cornerstone of our civilization (it doesn't have to be but de facto is), should not exist. I agree, perhaps with a different justification in mind. But doesn't it feel a little odd to say that in spite of your abilities (which are surely great) and limited freedoms (which are quite expansive as you can be across the globe in 24 hours if you like) that running through the heart of life is violence? This just doesn't cohere with experience. Few people cry "help me" when they pay a sales tax. They know it serves a function and in no way is akin to murder. Murder is the absence of life. You are being deprived nothing of the sort. Your deprivation is a mere fraction of your abilities. So crying murder is a joke at best and at worst lacks human perspective. The abstraction of the state murdering someone is just that: an abstraction. You call the partly good and partly bad as one lump sum of evil. You are therefore ignoring the fact that without this state, you have no protection of rights and private property. How do you propose protection of property?

Can society exist without laws? Once you remove the state, how do we keep certain groups from overtaking and raping others?

There's another thread where the discussion of the absence of the State is occurring. I tagged you in it so you should be able to find it. Regardless, governments murder every day, they just don't call it murder, generally.

 

[pillars]

Government is not the only alternative to Anarchy. The main social structure which enabled American settlers to found the American west was "Civil Society" - a set of norms shared by those settlers and enforced in voluntary social interactions.

Enforced how, and by whom? A sheriff = government.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How do you tell the difference?

Is big government like pornography, you can't define it but you know it when you see it?

Or is it more like beauty... in the eye of the beholder? Just like one man's nasty skank is another man's beauty queen, one man's authoritarian overreach is another man's just policy.

How do you decide whether a particular law or policy is big government or good government?

I have a simple rule of thumb, if it comes from the government it is all about big government.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well I was going to say that the idea of "big government" versus "good government" isn't really the issue, because "good government" doesn't exist, but that seemed to be outside the scope of your thread. Everything the government does is based on violence and coercion to begin with so it's never good, but the bigger it is the more it does so the more it engages in violence and coercion.

As Ronald Reagan so wisely said: Government isn't the answer; government is the problem."

Our founding father's wisdom of personal responsibility and the importance of living within means is what is needed for America to prosper. The national debt is skyrocketing as we are "spending like there's no tomorrow.

"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples' money." - Margaret Thatcher

No offense, but how exactly does that help one to distinguish good government from big government?

No offense, but you have to show me good government before I can explain how it is different than big government.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well I was going to say that the idea of "big government" versus "good government" isn't really the issue, because "good government" doesn't exist, but that seemed to be outside the scope of your thread. Everything the government does is based on violence and coercion to begin with so it's never good, but the bigger it is the more it does so the more it engages in violence and coercion.

From the get-go I want to state I respect you and hope we can engage in clean debate. This is a fundamental question about government that deserves serious consideration. Ultimately, I think you are right about there is no good government. Most people attracted to power are mediocre and our institutions have been slanted towards personal gain over the good of all.

But the fact is we have government, so we need to consider what's good and what's not. You assert all government activity is violent. I sharply disagree but I suspect it's because your definition of government is coercion. So that' won't do for our purposes of discussion since by definition I have no chance of asserting otherwise. I'm sure you are attached to that term and tautology so I will use a modified term: really existing government.

So given really existing government (REG) we can take a look and see if there is anything REG does that is not violent. Take any number of welfare programs. I have received benefits on occasion and I can assure you there was no violence, there was no coercion in the process. I was simply without adequate food and after much bickering decided to see how good government can be if at all. It turns out I was able to get the nutritious food my body needed and this quickly became a celebratory day when my card would be loaded. It meant I had access to sustenance that was denied to me through prices and the market.

To argue this is coercive is to simply speak in an esoteric language that does not vibe with reality in this case. I can offer more specific examples but suffice to say, REG does good as well as bad. but I most curious by your anarcho-capitalist stance. I find this an oxy-moron at best and an outright contradiction at worst. I want to reiterate I respect you and you are clearly intelligent so I have chosen to engage your views on a critical level as I hope you enjoy. I mean no harm and it's sad that most participants I've engaged on USMB feel deeply threatened and hurl insults at me for merely challenging their assertions.

Anyway, allow me to explain. You probably imagine free enterprise is the fuel for freedom. But free enterprise cannot exist without private property, right? Right. So how do we come to hold private property? Through drawing up a document that claims you own such and such. This document is then embedded in a set of legal statutes governing "property rights." But in order to defend property rights once you own something there must be those who defend that property from altercations and invasions.

Well, property then is by no means self-evident and is entirely arbitrary from its deed to its legalisms. For without property, there is no need for property rights and no need for laws that arbitrarily support property. Nor is there a need for an army of defense to serve those with property while limiting those who do not have property from accessing life sustaining land or water. Thus, some form of government must exist in order to protect property rights. Inherent, according to John Locke, Hobbes and others whom I've read say that the state of nature does not work for property. That governments must be instituted and have been to protect property (but the only way property had nascence was through state protection from outsiders by arbitrary legal documents.

Therefore capitalism is state dependent and if we take a look at subsidies of corporations and tax incentives, we can see that fact is really beneficial. State re-distribution of taxes is alive and well and much of it is re-distributed upwards to private hand though various means. We can discuss this more if you like but suffice to say it doesn't take much thinking to realize anarcho-capitalism is blatantly unaligned with anarchism. Anarchism is absence of state and capitalism is dependent upon the state for private property to be protected.

If you want to get hypothetical and say capitalism can exist without government then who protects the property? The private enterprise-ers. But how would they protect property? The only way possible: the same way the government does: through intimidation, coercion and violence. Thus, authority is sneaked through the back door while still calling it private. Well, technically all authority is is private people cooperating and there would be cooperation among the few corporations that own a majority of the earth's supposed "private property." So it seems anarcho-capitalism is a contradiction in terms.

If you'd like further discussion listen to this podcast at around 30 minutes in: CrimethInc. Ex-Workers? Collective : Podcast Episode #18

Funny how you think that the money that you get just magically appears on that card. The thing is that, in order to put that money on your card, the government has to take it from somebody else. That taking involves force. Our government happens to be particularly good about exercising the force used to coerce taxes out of people, which happens to be one reason this country has a low tax rate compared to all those other countries you are so enamored with that you think are socialistic. Most countries look upon the IRS with envy because they cannot get their people, the ones who repeatedly vote in all those benefits, to actually pay the taxes needed to support their welfare state.

By the way, just a heads up, if you want to get people to believe you respect them don't accuse them of tautology before they even have a chance to defend their position, it shines a light on the fact that you have no actual intention of listening to what they say.

 

[manifold]

As Ronald Reagan so wisely said: Government isn't the answer; government is the problem."

Our founding father's wisdom of personal responsibility and the importance of living within means is what is needed for America to prosper. The national debt is skyrocketing as we are "spending like there's no tomorrow.

"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples' money." - Margaret Thatcher

No offense, but how exactly does that help one to distinguish good government from big government?

No offense, but you have to show me good government before I can explain how it is different than big government.

I consider the criminalization of murder to be an example of good government.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No offense, but how exactly does that help one to distinguish good government from big government?

No offense, but you have to show me good government before I can explain how it is different than big government.

I consider the criminalization of murder to be an example of good government.

I consider it to be an example of a good law. Good government is not a single law, it is everything the government does, and how it does it.

 

[manifold]

No offense, but you have to show me good government before I can explain how it is different than big government.

I consider the criminalization of murder to be an example of good government.

I consider it to be an example of a good law. Good government is not a single law, it is everything the government does, and how it does it.

Sounds like a hair not worth splitting to me.

Are you saying you cannot think of any laws that constitute big government?