Purpose of Government

[Mathbud1]

Mathbud1,

I didn't intend to call out the people as succeeding, I meant to call out the institutions which consider quarterly profit. If you don't, you are outta the game. "So consider the short term or don't bother" is what it comes down to. I have nothing against the people in elite positions per se. Like Noam Chomsky says, the execs know they aren't leaving a bright future for their children but the institutions won't allow them to think another way. if they did, they would be outta there.

Regarding the question about more gov't=more corruption. This cannot be determined a priori. We must take a look at what expanding the gov't has done. Can it be done in matter of fact and helpful ways? Yes. Take civil rights. They were demanding the gov't do something and it has resulted in more progress than regress by passing certain laws. Did the war on poverty that lasted about 3 years work? It certainly helped a few in need. So I'd imagine a plan that recognizes the humanity and needs of each citizen can be implemented in positively. My hope of lifting almost all people out of poverty would mean they could make their own choices and likely resist the institutions that harmed them Moreover, if those in poverty became peers with people like FAQ, then he would be less likely to assert falsehoods that poor people make bad products and thus deserve less. The fact is, people are molded by birth, geographical happenstance and institutions, all of which are not their choosing. And if the institutions churn out extreme inequality, yeah, people are less likely to see others as peers and think they somehow fail to work as hard. It allows discrimination to become insidious rather than a helpful distinction. That doesn't mean there won't be fraud and some negative consequences in expanding the gov't, but instead of dismantling the state, I think we should strengthen it to combat what institutions (including gov't) have helped create: massive inequality that is just shameful given human capability to create an abundant society for everyone (during the 2008 food crisis there was enough food for every person on earth to eat 2,700 kilo calories-see former UN Ex. Director Josette Sheeran)

Before we can run a society without gov't or little gov't, it would behoove us to ensure means for survival to everyone. Without gov't, what then of law? Wouldn't anyone with enough might and/or resources form a cruel dictatorship over us? Like Goldman Sachs who own vast amounts of resources and wealth. That would be regress. In fact, the idea of private property is founded upon gov't. Without gov't, private property cannot be insured. It would likely be mayhem.

There's a big difference between civil rights laws and putting the government in charge of distributing resources or controlling how resources are distributed. There is little to no opportunity for corruption based on civil rights laws. There is a HUGE opportunity for corruption when government is responsible for distributing resources. That corruption would likely only lead to greater inequality than today.

I'm not saying we should have no government and therefore mayhem. I'm saying that limiting the opportunity for government corruption is the only sane thing to do.

I know you think your emotional arguments are falling on deaf ears. They aren't. I just don't see a way for government to be in charge of the things you want them to be in charge of without causing even more harm than we face today.

 

[Mathbud1]

A letter from 2096:

Our long, hesitant, painful recovery, over the last five decades, from the breakdown of democratic institutions during the Dark Years (2014-2044) has changed our political vocabulary, as well as our sense of the relation between the moral order and the economic order. Just as 20th-century Americans had trouble imagining how their pre-Civil War ancestors could have stomached slavery, so we at the end of the 21st century have trouble imagining how our great-grandparents could have legally permitted a C.E.O. to get 20 times more than her lowest-paid employees. We cannot understand how Americans a hundred years ago could have tolerated the horrific contrast between a childhood spent in the suburbs and one spent in the ghettos. Such inequalities seem to us evident moral abominations, but the vast majority of our ancestors took them to be regrettable necessities.

Or

The revolution starts tomorrow. We have to take back the country our ancestors sold so cheaply to the State. They bought "equality" and paid for it with our freedom. We are slaves now to a tyrannical government who controls every aspect of our lives. No more. Tomorrow we fight. Tomorrow we become free men and women once more.

Just as possible, and probably more likely when you fight for greater government control.

 

[dblack]

As long as we're quoting sci-fi:

 

[gnarlylove]

There's a big difference between civil rights laws and putting the government in charge of distributing resources or controlling how resources are distributed. There is little to no opportunity for corruption based on civil rights laws. There is a HUGE opportunity for corruption when government is responsible for distributing resources. That corruption would likely only lead to greater inequality than today.

I'm not saying we should have no government and therefore mayhem. I'm saying that limiting the opportunity for government corruption is the only sane thing to do.

I know you think your emotional arguments are falling on deaf ears. They aren't. I just don't see a way for government to be in charge of the things you want them to be in charge of without causing even more harm than we face today.

First, my supposed emotional argument is a mis-categorization although it requires empathy. It is not formally or informally an argument. I know people are aware unfathomable suffering is happening but we tolerate it as long as we are taken care of, i.e. regrettable necessities. So more accurately it's an appeal to the moral order to avoid idealogical prattle and contemplate how to address this serious and growing problem.

So how would you address it? I mean in the here and now with the current population, not some hypothetical scenario.

A significant source of the problem comes in combating the institutions that are just doing their job. Namely, suppressing the general pop. and working class (~bottom 40-60%) through public relations, education (and indoctrination of values) advertising, cyclical consumption and a host of others that prevent them from asking why it is this way, how their neighbor is doing (a critical component of non-governmental intervention is social responsibility) and realizing moral progress comes in resisting the superficial distractions from real concerns.

I keep hearing gov't cannot act responsibly in the economic order. This is not entirely true but has merit. But take food stamps. It is re-distribution. It is being defunded to prevent it from working as well so we complain about it, nevertheless it is a savior of children and adults alike in need (including me 2011-12) who have been shafted in one way or another or are seeking better opportunities in new places without support systems. It doesn't operate perfectly, but fraud is minimal (despite the lies Fox "reports") and it helps bridge the gap desperately needed. The whole idea of a welfare state recognizes the moral deficit of a society that inadvertently or intentionally neglects its population. It is a recognition that social costs are real (like poverty leading to crime and disease) that can be obviated by spending a fraction in advance.

So I understand your concern, but again, this is not capable of being decided with a priori reasoning or some inductive argument based on past failures. So arguing against gov't intervention based on past instances or a presupposition that "gov'ts just can't get it right" may fit snug in certain ideologies but in rational discussion, it's unsound clap-trap. It doesn't mean I disagree, but this argument is not cogent. I think you understand this.
Regarding my vague redistribution program, naturally without a strong and proper introduction, discussion and convincing rebuttals to the public and more importantly to elites, I tend to agree that implementation is likely to go wrong. And there's always the problem of special interests gutting it down the road. But this shouldn't mean we throw our hands up!!!!! That's what makes the institutions so powerful!

But I prefer to drop this specific program for the discussion we must first have since many view gov't as almost necessarily opposed to conducing public welfare.

The discussion is this: making a clear distinction between what is possible in the here and now and what we wish was possible but isn't tenable. My utopian visions differ from what I advocate in the here and now but they do not conflict. Here is where ideology gets in the way. So while I agree I wish gov't was not a major part of human affairs and that autonomy could flourish, indeed it can and should! But given today, tomorrow, and next week I can't see a plausible idea that addresses these concerns without using current infrastructure like the gov't. So instead, we must use what's out there to attain more plausible and immediate goals. Namely, reducing the crass inequality in America among other goals.

If we stick to ideology here and dismantle the gov't we will likely erase many of the hard fought victories over the course of America and human history. Our history as a species is a slow and painful one. Robert Wright has an excellent book explaining the moral arc or the nonzero sum relationships that have waxed and waned over our long history but ultimately it's evident that the moral arc bends towards justice given a epoch vantage point. Power structures can effect change for the good or for bad and we've tended to do better even if certain parts of history seem to say otherwise. Globalization is natural and an outworking of more and more nonzero sum relationships benefiting humanity. While it's true gov't and power tend to be corrupt, we must use what we have to effect as much positive change and mitigating the negative. Yes? No? I guess this returns us to the question: what do you propose we do in the here and now about rising inequality? Or do you think reducing inequality is a senseless aim like many people conservatives and elites contend?

 

[Mathbud1]

I would propose taking a hard look at the 90+ government programs we already have in place to combat poverty and eliminating or reforming any that are not effective before we add more programs. The system should be simplified as much as possible to lessen the probability of corruption and increase the public visibility into the programs.

If using logical reasoning based on past experience isn't fit for rational discussion what is? So it's better to ignore past experience of governmental corruption and just hope they'll get it right this time?

Does something need to change? Absolutely. Is adding more gov't spending the answer? I don't think so.

 

[gnarlylove]

My point was that it wasn't logical, that inductive reasoning is just that, it's based on case by case. You can make probabilty assessments, but you can't state with certainty or deductive quality. You have to do it before you can know the consequences. But I agreed the likelihood of the program I was proposing would be an uphill battle at best.

I like your suggestion on the other governments. Some 200 nations are doing it differently. There must be some doing better than others. And indeed there is, namely the heavy capitalist/socialist countries with "nanny state" intervention. Would this work for the extremely frightened American population? Well, some major things would have to change but that's at least a good starting point.

The World's Happiest Countries - Forbes

https://emsnews.wordpress.com/2011/01/23/happiest-nations-are-mostly-northern-socialist-nations/

 

[gnarlylove]

And the point isn't to remain socialist forever as if we've reached the end of history. The point is to gradually dial back on ego concerns to promote more neighborly and empathetic concerns. This would inspire humans to simply help one other more when one is in need instead of passing them by and solely focusing self interests like capitalism proposes we do every second, which obviously will always cater to avarice and inequality. We are not and should not be considered profit maximizing machines, it's antithetical to welfare of the general population, but if the general pop isn't your concern, then I have no argument. I'm not asking for pure equality, I'm asking for freedom so people can earn their livelihood while also having the time and energy to pursue creative and innovative things without constraints of deadlines and bosses breathing down one's neck unless a deadline was relevant. Perhaps without deadlines many could work more efficiently without the preoccupation. Either way, it grants greater freedom to more people which I think we can all agree is a good thing. But nothing is perfect and we would always remain vigilant in order to maintain a semblance of a generally satisfied population always striving for new and better ideas (of government or the lack therein, of transportation, farming, on and on).

Naturally these are quite radical ideas to the US but have been around for centuries. Once you get use to them, they don't appear so dangerous. In fact, you can find yourself having less consumer products than the avg American and be happier since you don't need as much money and resources to sustain yourself. Dblack knows all. Perhaps you do too! Such a dialing down of ego and wants would certainly help avert environmental degradation and potential ultimate doom scenarios.

 

[dblack]

...Dblack knows all.

Now you're beginning to understand!

Seriously though, gnarly, it's beginning to look like your view of the purpose of government is nothing less that omnipotent social engineering.

I have no problem with utopian ambitions. But I think it's wrong to force them on people with government. Call it 'ideological', even 'religious', but it just conflicts too directly with my basic sense of morality. We have no business manipulating others' egos and I'd fight against your desired use of government power with everything I could muster, regardless of how much I might agree with your ultimate vision for humanity.

 

[gnarlylove]

I meant to say "knows all about it" meaning all about reducing consumption. This could be roughly equivalent to you knowing all lol

My vague program to help others out of their condition stems from a deep moral concern. If you think it's a regrettable necessity, then you need to recheck your moral compass. It's massively intolerable with anyone who understands what others are going through (much of the world's population in fact!!!). This ins't utopian. This isn't striving for anything beyod what is presently achievable. To criticize this idea as a principled mistake is utterly refusing to acknwoledge who victories for human kind and freedom come: through popular struggle to overcome domination. By attempting to wipe povery from the record, the kind we see in the ghettos, then we have made serious progress towards freedom and justice for all.

But it also sounds like your hinting at the fact that you don't really and truly care about everyone. You prefer to stick to platitudes and give lip service to empathy but when it comes to doing what empathy says, then you stop yourself at the behest of your principle: the nothing good can come from add to the gov't. In other words, the new deal, and anything increase in gov'ts ability has lead to greater harm than good. Heck, you never even mention the good, as if literally nothing ever has resulted from gov't.

I know you'll resist and say you are wrong. But you have been repeatedly denying any possible gov't plea. You keep forgetting you have to work with what you've got. Arguing your principles (that aren't even truisms, merely inductive reasoning, starting from particulars moving towards the general conclusion that gov't intervention is always bad--but such reasoning never results in certainty thus the principle is not the only possible outcome).

If popular struggle can be successful for creating more opportunities (Education, jobs, etc) then I'd generally support it. I'd obviously want some strict details but on the whole, there is no reason to reject these ideas outright based in principle (what I've been calling your ideology). My ideology is the same as yours: gov't needs to go. But fighting for that now is useless and there IS PLENTY that can be done that can indeed result in less human suffering allowing more people to be free and hence are more likely to resist the gov't. The more people the better.

 

[dblack]

I meant to say "knows all about it" meaning all about reducing consumption. This could be roughly equivalent to you knowing all lol

My vague program to help others out of their condition stems from a deep moral concern. If you think it's a regrettable necessity, then you need to recheck your moral compass. It's massively intolerable with anyone who understands what others are going through (much of the world's population in fact!!!). This ins't utopian. This isn't striving for anything beyod what is presently achievable. To criticize this idea as a principled mistake is utterly refusing to acknwoledge who victories for human kind and freedom come: through popular struggle to overcome domination. By attempting to wipe povery from the record, the kind we see in the ghettos, then we have made serious progress towards freedom and justice for all.

But it also sounds like your hinting at the fact that you don't really and truly care about everyone. You prefer to stick to platitudes and give lip service to empathy but when it comes to doing what empathy says, then you stop yourself at the behest of your principle: the nothing good can come from add to the gov't. In other words, the new deal, and anything increase in gov'ts ability has lead to greater harm than good. Heck, you never even mention the good, as if literally nothing ever has resulted from gov't.

I know you'll resist and say you are wrong. But you have been repeatedly denying any possible gov't plea. You keep forgetting you have to work with what you've got. Arguing your principles (that aren't even truisms, merely inductive reasoning, starting from particulars moving towards the general conclusion that gov't intervention is always bad--but such reasoning never results in certainty thus the principle is not the only possible outcome).

If popular struggle can be successful for creating more opportunities (Education, jobs, etc) then I'd generally support it. I'd obviously want some strict details but on the whole, there is no reason to reject these ideas outright based in principle (what I've been calling your ideology). My ideology is the same as yours: gov't needs to go. But fighting for that now is useless and there IS PLENTY that can be done that can indeed result in less human suffering allowing more people to be free and hence are more likely to resist the gov't. The more people the better.

It's really fascinating to track all the ways you misinterpret me. Maybe I'm just not being clear. It's tempting to think it's deliberate, strawmanning etc... but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and simply assume I'm not communicating effectively.

Rather than tackle all the ways you've pegged me wrong, let me focus on the 'elephant in the room', the thing you keep steering around every time I bring it up: It's not your ambitions to help people that bother me, it's your willingness to force others to join you in that goal. What's wrong with approaching your aspirations via voluntary, cooperative effort? Why do think we need to employ government to help each other?? Why do you think you have the right to force people to help each other in the way that you prescribe?

 

[gnarlylove]

I think I've been missing it or just not putting it together in one coherent dblack. But I forgot to tack on that there are several ways to address this missing of the mark on human dignity. There can be more effective way to aide other humans than using the gov't. But if you think charity will overcome the institutions, you are fantasizing that people are inclined to do that or will do that on their own--many are too concerned about making ends meet. People are highly cerebral and without jolting them into action, they remain cerebral. Why work for the system when you can drop out and guarantee yourself and millions of others a quality chance at living by supporting a campaign to beat back the corporate influence and create more institutions that are aimed at aiding the poor and sick. This isn't economics, this is morality.

But the problem I reiterate with your "never use the gov't approach personal principle" or "don't force me because I have principles" is what continues to tacitly allow the institutions to dominate the gov't and therefore us. Since you are accurate in identifying the gov't is authorized to employ force, we should use that ability to cease mistreatment and blaming of fellow humans. Clearly your moral compass is right, you recognize the problem, but you think it's not a matter of gov't. But gov't has already made it their business with food stamps and the welfare state, so why not expand it into working? Rather than dragging people along, why not actually use resources to end poverty. Mostly through taxation, and money is not your sole pursuit nor is consumption so I think you should very tolerating of serving your duty as a privileged citizen (if you are) that either be taxed (if you work and can afford it) or not be taxed and thus likely helped by others being taxed (if your condition is not deemed adequate quality of life and prospects).

Your idea of force seems bent on fearmongering about your supposed freedoms that you cannot forsake rather than taking action and sacrificing certain supposed freedoms so others may come to realize freedoms you already have. If your freedoms are preventing another from having any basic freedom, then giving a little (through mostly taxation) is not taking any genuine freedoms from you UNLESS you consider money so damn important that you refuse to give more of it (remember if you aren't deemed able to afford it, then you don't pay and it sounds like your life is bare minimum and so they simply would tax someone else, who can afford it) I know you sacrifice in your personal life and that's great, but if (and it's worthy of debate) a welfare program is erected to basically cease poverty, not supporting it IN PRINCIPLE is just dubious behavior--preferring privileged status over the lives of humans, you'd rather do it on your own and expect everyone to join in on their own time--but this is an inadequate approach currently, and thus I propose we do something more. It doesn't mean using the gov't, but please tell me what you'd think would be a program that reduces poverty in serious ways.

Don't take this to be accusing you of being immoral, personally I have no idea what you do and you could be a saint, but when you question gov't intervention IN PRINCIPLE as never appropriate and certainly not in this case, then you are genuinely unaware of the scope and severity of this problem. And here I don't think you are! So you are just being stubborn ideologically, is what it appears to me, rejecting the idea of sacrificing so that others may have because it steps on your toes (why does it? do you care about money that much? and since I doubt you have much money from your own admission, i doubt there would be any stepping on toes if this is your main concern). The fact is, something major needs to change instead of mentioning passively "I help people" and writing it off as "the best we can do without fucking shit up." This approach isn't enough given the authority of credit lending banks, walmart, wall street, corporations and institutions over those in need.

 

[dblack]

I think I've been missing it or just not putting it together in one coherent dblack. But I forgot to tack on that there are several ways to address this missing of the mark on human dignity. There can be more effective way to aide other humans than using the gov't. But if you think charity will overcome the institutions, you are fantasizing that people are inclined to do that or will do that on their own--many are too concerned about making ends meet. People are highly cerebral and without jolting them into action, they remain cerebral. Why work for the system when you can drop out and guarantee yourself and millions of others a quality chance at living by supporting a campaign to beat back the corporate influence and create more institutions that are aimed at aiding the poor and sick. This isn't economics, this is morality.

But the problem I reiterate with your "never use the gov't approach personal principle" or "don't force me because I have principles" is what continues to tacitly allow the institutions to dominate the gov't and therefore us. Since you are accurate in identifying the gov't is authorized to employ force, we should use that ability to cease mistreatment and blaming of fellow humans. Clearly your moral compass is right, you recognize the problem, but you think it's not a matter of gov't. But gov't has already made it their business with food stamps and the welfare state, so why not expand it into working? Rather than dragging people along, why not actually use resources to end poverty. Mostly through taxation, and money is not your sole pursuit nor is consumption so I think you should very tolerating of serving your duty as a privileged citizen (if you are) that either be taxed (if you work and can afford it) or not be taxed and thus likely helped by others being taxed (if your condition is not deemed adequate quality of life and prospects).

Your idea of force seems bent on fearmongering about your supposed freedoms that you cannot forsake rather than taking action and sacrificing certain supposed freedoms so others may come to realize freedoms you already have. If your freedoms are preventing another from having any basic freedom, then giving a little (through mostly taxation) is not taking any genuine freedoms from you UNLESS you consider money so damn important that you refuse to give more of it (remember if you aren't deemed able to afford it, then you don't pay and it sounds like your life is bare minimum and so they simply would tax someone else, who can afford it) I know you sacrifice in your personal life and that's great, but if (and it's worthy of debate) a welfare program is erected to basically cease poverty, not supporting it IN PRINCIPLE is just dubious behavior--preferring privileged status over the lives of humans, you'd rather do it on your own and expect everyone to join in on their own time--but this is an inadequate approach currently, and thus I propose we do something more. It doesn't mean using the gov't, but please tell me what you'd think would be a program that reduces poverty in serious ways.

Don't take this to be accusing you of being immoral, personally I have no idea what you do and you could be a saint, but when you question gov't intervention IN PRINCIPLE as never appropriate and certainly not in this case, then you are genuinely unaware of the scope and severity of this problem. And here I don't think you are! So you are just being stubborn ideologically, is what it appears to me, rejecting the idea of sacrificing so that others may have because it steps on your toes (why does it? do you care about money that much? and since I doubt you have much money from your own admission, i doubt there would be any stepping on toes if this is your main concern). The fact is, something major needs to change instead of mentioning passively "I help people" and writing it off as "the best we can do without fucking shit up." This approach isn't enough given the authority of credit lending banks, walmart, wall street, corporations and institutions over those in need.

*Sigh*

Sorry, but that was really hard to read. I've sifted through it, trying to figure out if you've answered my questions but I'm still not sure. You seem to be saying "No, voluntary, cooperative effort won't suffice. People must be forced to do what I think is good for them."

Personally, I don't have such a dismal view of humanity, and if I did - I wouldn't give a fuck about saving them. Seriously, if humans are the selfish, empty creatures you seem to think they are, why bother? And if they're not, then you don't need to order them around like serfs.

I'm wondering if you've thought much about how utterly authoritarian these kinds of goals are? I frankly don't see any limits to your desire to expand the welfare state, and I think it would lead pretty directly to totalitarian government that would be far more dehumanizing than anything we currently struggle with.

 

[gnarlylove]

I understand, if I knew how to be brief in each post I would but somehow it keeps going, leading to confusion (unless you were inside my head understanding precisely what I mean). If you have a suggestion, let me know, I'd appreciate it. Despite the length on this one, it has fairly lucid, trust me.

Thanks for being honest about if humans are X, then we do not have a moral obligation. This is crucial.

People aren't so different from chimps. Both express social life in hierarchies. The main difference is chimps lack access to the moral parameters to the extent of our species. Moreover, we can foresee consequences much greater than chimps and can be encouraged to cooperate even if it doesn't seem to immediately satisfy us or make sense in our limited intelligence. So if people are chimps insofar as we are only capable of expressing society in the form of hierarchies where some people dominate others, then indeed, "fuck us"--pursue the self first.

But I don't think we are born without a choice in the matter of rigid hierarchy, it is partially learned if not mostly. People are inherently docile, teachable. We also have an inherent curiosity. But this curiosity is beaten back so people become more like cogs because they must accept authority for bread. So people aren't inclined to step outside of what they know works. However, we could create a mostly non-hierarchical society, as long as everyone agrees the main value is freedom for all, not just lots of cooperation with a fundamental domination matrix. Here you might disagree freedom for all should be the goal, let me know.

If we were like chimps and could never step outside of our hierarchy and examine it, then we have no reason to fight it as long as dblack and gnarly is OK. Thus your complaint of me being authoritarian is accurate.

But this is misconstruing or simple misunderstanding. There are certain things morality should compel us to do that doesn't lead to immediate gratification or money. Right? Just about everyone can come to know the few "universal" morals that exist for our species and thus those morals have binding qualities. So my "authoritarianism" (this is a terrible categorization as if I am using violence to get my way) is only authoritarian insofar as one does not understand certain moral maxims and that those maxims are binding.

Sadly, not many people act on these morals even though they are well aware. Instead, they are cogs that must focus on self in order to survive because society is set up that way. It doesn't have to be rigid like it is. Thus I suggested we rally support for the moral maxim that seeks to end oppression of our fellow humans through eliminating as much poverty as we can since it is very possible to cease this, as long as we agree to it.

I'm sure you'll point out how this is oppressing some to liberate others. But this is just lacking foresight. The domination I'm advocating involves absolutely no violence. All sane people agree to end oppression (as long as it's possible and worthwhile). So if others must help out though they disagree, they disagree as a matter of lacking knowledge on how address this aspect of oppression or they simply are unaware that people suffer in this way and that is could be changed. Everyone can recognize oppression of today is simply wrong. Only the elite and those who listen to elite's propaganda would disagree. So the authoritarianism you speak of feels like a face palm rather than a sensible point. I'm not saying we must do it my way, I'm very open to suggestions on eradicating poverty but the way the world is, we need to do something drastic.

Not only is this fulfilling human moral duties, but lifting the poor out of poverty ultimately benefits all humans. So that if the person disagrees they have no good reason not to since they would ultimately benefit anyway, they just don't get immediate gratification.

I can see those who wish to amass personal wealth beyond what is required for a decent life sharply disagreeing here. Verily verily, this is just unnecessary avarice of the ego. Ending oppression in the form of poverty leads to reduced crime among other things and also enables the masses to contribute to the progress of society instead of its regress or stagnation--reducing the need for police and certain other taxpayer burdens. So who knows, ending poverty (which I've heard would be about 200 billion in America) would help pay for itself if not entirely.

So if making others wake up to their moral duties as a moral being is authoritarian count me in. Whether it's done through taxes and gov't or private social pursuits, it is really beneficial to the whole lot of human society (Except the super rich which sadly run the gov't and society's maxims). Take the idea of a winding road that comes down a mountain. Your house is visible on the North side which you can see from the top. As you go down and the road which circles the mountain, you see your house, then you don't. When you don't, you think you might be getting further away from your goal of a getting home (or creating a government-less society) but in reality we all know you are getting closer even if it feels like you aren't. So sometimes you need to support things that don't settle with rigid principles and ideology. Either we can be akin to chimp society, only way more complicated (thus enjoy exploitation and exorbitance) or we can recognize our moral duty and put an end to power structures. A pre-requisite for ending power structures is to get everyone to an acceptable standard of living, causing skeptics of poor people to view everyone as peers, neighbors.

I have no specific plan so I can't say for sure that you should support what I said. I welcome your suggestion on how rid the world of poverty (a necessary step in creating a totally free gov't-less society). Or if you think poverty is a regrettable necessity, why do you think this?

 

[gnarlylove]

What does an ideal government look like when it actually performs its purpose?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-K04K_OHYqo&feature=em-subs_digest]Chomsky "What If You Were Elected President?" - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Listening]

Why must the government provide a means. The Constitution says nothing about food.

Without food humans do not survive. The most important aspect of a functioning society is its ability to provide nutrients to its productive citizens. Without which, freedom of speech has no meaning since people cannot exist without food. I am not using the US constitution as infallible document. There is plenty to update since the 18th century. It may be a helpful guide but following it like religion is dangerous (I am not accusing you of this, merely making the point).

Where is this written and codified ?

Do you even understand the monster you unleash when you look to government to do something like this.

Let me ask you a question.

If someone starves to death in a community (and with obesity growing....has that been happening ?), is it the fault of the government or the fault of the community ?

 

[gnarlylove]

It is not codified.

Does that mean the everything codified is as it should be and what is not codified should not be? Put differently, have we reached the end of history? Or yet another way, does the simple fact of codification imply it is proper ethics?

Once you admit the code if perfect, I have no comment. If you think the code has room for improvement, you leave a gap for change. Then we can discuss if this change fits.

Only then does your question take on meaning for me.

 

[georgephillip]

Why must the government provide a means. The Constitution says nothing about food.

Without food humans do not survive. The most important aspect of a functioning society is its ability to provide nutrients to its productive citizens. Without which, freedom of speech has no meaning since people cannot exist without food. I am not using the US constitution as infallible document. There is plenty to update since the 18th century. It may be a helpful guide but following it like religion is dangerous (I am not accusing you of this, merely making the point).

Where is this written and codified ?

Do you even understand the monster you unleash when you look to government to do something like this.

Let me ask you a question.

If someone starves to death in a community (and with obesity growing....has that been happening ?), is it the fault of the government or the fault of the community ?

Perhaps it's the fault of government that private monsters like Goldman Sachs are free to profit from mass starvation in communities where obesity is not growing?

"Goldman Sachs made more than a quarter of a billion pounds last year by speculating on food staples, reigniting the controversy over banks profiting from the global food crisis."

Goldman bankers get rich betting on food prices as millions starve - Business News - Business - The Independent