Purpose of Government

[dblack]

Gov't is nothing special with special powers. It is simply the organization of people to address their concerns.

Government is granted a monopoly on violence. That's the essential deal of the social contract. We forfeit our rights to employ violence personally, and vest that power exclusively with government to use in narrowly prescribed circumstances (as defined by the Constitution, in the case of the US). That's the 'special power' that makes government different that all other institutions.

Now who is in the gov't is monumentally important. If the people controlled the gov't like we are told we do, then when popular opinion says something, the gov't responds. But we all know it doesn't work that way. Instead, we have elites who operate gov't. It's not that their bad people, rather, it's just the nature of the structure. Either they participate in the elite interests or they are ousted. Public opinion is a slight consideration as noted by a recent congressman (or some study) that said "96% of the time when an issue is undecided officials turn to written letters/emails for thought." It is important to notice what is not being said as much as what is being said by this. When an issue is decided, public opinion is not considered. So take 80% of the pop. wants gun legislation. This didn't pass because the elites saw it differently. How can it be democracy when 80% (margin of error less than 3%) of the people disagree?

I'm not really sure how much this is the case, but I find it interesting because the point of view seems to be that the main dysfunction with government is that it isn't responsive to the will of the people, and that if it were, everything would be fine. Some of the worst policies are those that most actually do cater to the 'will of the people', so this seems like a dubious position at best.

Without sustenance, natural rights are obsolete. In fact, natural rights are obsolete themselves given leaps and bounds in our civilization as a nation.

What does this mean?

No child can succeed if their parents cannot find work to support their needs. 1 in 7 children in America experience hunger insecurity. This is not civilized treatment. It is easily conceivable with US resources that each person willing to participate in society through work (building high speed rail, renewable energy, tutoring, counseling of prisoners instead of literally inculcating hatred for the system on and on). I'm not saying the gov't provides the jobs, I'm saying the gov't uses its authority to generate jobs mostly through structures and institutions that already exist including many private institutions that already counsel, build solar etc etc.

How is that different from providing jobs?

 

[FA_Q2]

The jobs market is controlled by an inefficient market. The supply of jobs are far lower than the demand. This means the price of labor is driven down, way down. Working conditions can be abhorrent but must be tolerated if one wishes to continue eating 3 meals a day. This is a tragedy that so many wish they could participate in society but too few opportunities exist for the bottom 40%. So the unemployment rate in America does not consider long-term unemployment and those who simply give up in frustration. If these rates were calculated, unemployment might be around 20%. Hence I argue the gov't should step in given it's massive resources to make the market efficient again. Efficient with respect to generating a healthy society, of course, not one with dismal inequality.

America's CEO to avg. worker pay is 354 times higher as calculated in 2012. WTF! In most countries it tends to be around 100-150.

The only way to justify this sort of institutional mistreatment of humans is to define those in poverty and near poverty as getting what they deserve as if they are lesser humans, akin to chimps more than the average person. The term exploitation is a euphemism. I won't stand for such nonsense! ALL humans are born roughly the same (with a few outliers) but the elites have created institutions that prevent much of humanity from expressing their talents and pursuing their interests. Instead, they must compete fiercely in the job market where sometimes 1000s of applications are for 1 job. Fucking sick!

The problems with capitalism within a modern and computerized society is another thread altogether and completely separate from the idea of the purpose of government (the real source of issues with employment though I think that the problem is WAY overstated here)

I must address this claim that this is 'institutional mistreatment' and 'lesser humans.' Those statements are asinine. It is not the system that keeps those earning lower wages lower - it is the actual value of the work that you are willing to accomplish. We cant all be rich - that is a given but middle class America is not out of reach for those that are willing to work for it. It is not about trying to 'pursue your interests.' If such interests are not valuable then you are not going to get more than the ones that pursue something valuable - nor should you.

That altruistic approach has always failed because in the end - what is valuable is usually far more difficult than what is not. If everyone is going to get paid a 'decent' wage for their work then most people are going to choose the Mcjob that works 8 hours a day and has zero stress rather than the doctor who has an incredible level of stress and works shit tons of extra hours when needed.

Basically, that pay variance reflects the value and difficulty of the job performed. Because some people make less or even very little has nothing to do with them being a 'lesser human' and everything to do with the fact that their labor IS A LESSER PRODUCT. That is exactly how it should work as well.

Exec pay is totally irrelevant as well. The VAST majority of people do not fall into this category nor is it indicative of the imbalance for those people. Is exec pay for major companies rather asinine - sure. There is noting that we can do to change that reality anyway though and nothing that is done is going to have any real helpful impacts for those that are not executives. It is a misnomer that makes a good talking point and nothing more.

 

[gnarlylove]

I get where you are coming from, but think about this: What is sick about some people succeeding? Do you have a problem with the inequality in what people are making or do you have a problem with some people not succeeding? Would you be less outraged if the same number of people were living in poverty if the richest people just weren't as rich?

So what should the rich people do? Stop trying to make money? Stop investing in businesses and products? Stop succeeding?

What do you suggest?

Succeeding in present day means institutional robbery for elite Wall St. execs. They need not worry about blunders and mistakes unlike the 99%, the gov't is there to bail them out. There are plenty of alternatives that could have happened in 2008 but the choices made gave massive bonuses and consolidated power making them even more dominant. The recent book that came out explains the elite culture in detail called "Young Money." A fabulous excerpt on how the elites are so distant from the concerns of Americans.

So given the way the world is I think succeeding is highly detrimental beyond a certain level. Do I think in principle "succeeding" is inherently detrimental? No. It could easily be imagined that succeeding doesn't lead to such blatant inequality but alas we don't live in that world. Our gov't serves to protect power and wealth, protecting the elite's interests and so this will not change without massive public support and even then it's questionable. Just take a look at how much support existed for the "Public Option" and it was totally dismissed (Affordable Care Act).

We need to understand why there is inequality in the first place. There are a finite amount of resources to sustain human beings and so distribution can be fair or not. I don't advocate for a homogeneous distribution, but it is a moral outrage to take note of poverty in the US. Wikipedia has a good article on this.

So it's both areas we need to work on reigning in. Otherwise one will continue to counter progress in the other. Why? Because there is finite resources that must be reasonably distributed.

The main problem I see with poverty is not that people are poor per se--many spiritually aware people choose to have less. Rather, my main concern is how institutionalized poverty is. Having grown up in a poor area (avg. income 29,000/yr in 2011) and later traveling to major cities and seeing what major poverty can be like, even being homeless myself eating from trash cans, it is just jaw-dropping. You can't get a meal but unprecedented abundance exists all around you. Knowing the intimate stories of 100s, I know the struggles like the back of my hand that are results of poverty. The problem isn't that people don't make effort (though in some cases this is true) the major issue is the lack of opportunity that defeats their outlook. It starts with birth which one does not obviously choose. Being born into poverty one can expect lower quality education which in turn does not sufficiently prepare them for the workforce or encourage them to dream. It goes on and on from malnutrition effecting brain development as a child right up to adult life. It forces them to subordinate in order to survive.

So there are so many institutions and policies that exist to control the population, esp. the poor. So I argue we need to provide opportunities for them, not just tell them try harder. One has no reason to try harder if it won't result in benefits and this is the case. Hence I argue the gov't use its resources to help poor communities to be employed or something along those lines.

 

[gnarlylove]

To promote efficiency for example, and to increase the available opportunities, the work day could be decreased from 8 hours to 5 or say even 3, which has historical roots in labor movements and thinkers all the way back in the 19th century. Many squabbles can exist here but fundamentally this enables many more people to work to provide for their family. Kellog had the 6 hour work day beginning somewhere around the turn of the century to 1980. It was abandoned sometimes in the 80s as almost all business were standardized at 8 and they ridiculed Kellog for it.

But without major institutional changes across the board, I can't see progress of the sort I hope. So challenging these institutions and re-structuring them are essential. This is not impossible and we have much to be thankful about given what our violent labor history is like. One major institution to challenge is creating fairer education. Currently taxes from the local community provide much of the schools funding so richer communities have higher paid teachers attracting quality teachers. We could change this around to distribute funds to communities who need it the most.

 

[FA_Q2]

I would challenge that supposition. You assume that the government must provide such access because the people cannot do so for themselves otherwise there would be no point point be. I, personally, find that is the fundamental flaw with most peoples concept of government – they are looking for it to provide them something and I would challenge that as the purpose of government.

Gov't is nothing special with special powers. It is simply the organization of people to address their concerns.

I think that dblack sufficiently dealt with that statement.

Now who is in the gov't is monumentally important. If the people controlled the gov't like we are told we do, then when popular opinion says something, the gov't responds. But we all know it doesn't work that way. Instead, we have elites who operate gov't. It's not that their bad people, rather, it's just the nature of the structure. Either they participate in the elite interests or they are ousted. Public opinion is a slight consideration as noted by a recent congressman (or some study) that said "96% of the time when an issue is undecided officials turn to written letters/emails for thought." It is important to notice what is not being said as much as what is being said by this. When an issue is decided, public opinion is not considered.

So take 80% of the pop. wants gun legislation. This didn't pass because the elites saw it differently. How can it be democracy when 80% (margin of error less than 3%) of the people disagree?

No. That is utterly contrary to our government because we are not a democracy nor should we be. A pure democracy is what you are describing and that leave out very necessary protections for those that are not the majority. Gun legislation is an interesting point to bring up because that is one of the protections offered in the constitution where the will of the people is rather irrelevant. They do not have the right to take my protected rights away just because the majority support such. Any functioning government should include such protections.

This is NOT an indication that the elites control anything (even though they do). It is actually one of the few indications that the government is doing something that it should – abstaining from the removal of rights.

Also of worthy note is that your 80% statement is complete bunk. It refers to 80% of people wanting more but we can’t pass more – there needs to be actual policy. As soon as that policy gets presented those numbers drop like a rock. The one single idea that actually enjoyed a plurality was background checks which are completely not enforceable. Whenever a policy that can be enforced is presented it lost that popularity because of tangential requirements to make it enforceable like gun registries.

Even in your example, it was not an instance of the government not following the will of the people.

The purpose for government, if we truly want to be free, is nothing more than to protect our natural rights. Simple really though much much harder to implement. That should be the core of all government. It does not preclude something like a safety net or public works project but it does preclude those things from being the primary purpose of government. I think that what we have done to government today has essentially transformed core purpose of government to protect our rights to be a government whose core purpose is to provide for us. I think that the corrupting influence that cases is self even dent.

What the government provides, the government may take away. When the governments sole purpose is to ‘care’ for you or provide for you then you end up without any rights at all.

Please don't mistake my arguments to mean gov't must deliver food to each person in the morn. They must work for it, otherwise you don't get it. But there are millions who need food, but can't find adequate sustenance (some resort to crime which counters productive society). Without sustenance, natural rights are obsolete. In fact, natural rights are obsolete themselves given leaps and bounds in our civilization as a nation. No child can succeed if their parents cannot find work to support their needs. 1 in 7 children in America experience hunger insecurity. This is not civilized treatment. It is easily conceivable with US resources that each person willing to participate in society through work (building high speed rail, renewable energy, tutoring, counseling of prisoners instead of literally inculcating hatred for the system on and on). I'm not saying the gov't provides the jobs, I'm saying the gov't uses its authority to generate jobs mostly through structures and institutions that already exist including many private institutions that already counsel, build solar etc etc.

Distinction without a difference. Nothing here addresses the simple fact that the government does not need to supply something like food as people already do this very well for themselves. The government need not do anything. Even worse, when the government gets involved with things like this typically they INCREASE hunger as they introduce gross inefficiencies in the system. Basically, the government should not be doing anything that you can do for yourself.

Further, the government cannot simply create work through project that serve less or even no value than the resource used in their creation. A road that is used to promote commerce creates something and adds real value. This is a net gain on the system. A road that leads to nowhere (or the vast majority of light rail projects) DRAIN from the system because they take resource that would be producing value added items and instead creates nothing. In that instance, a few worker get some cash but the system itself loses the money that would have been spent in better places, the man hours that would have created something of value for the work (and thereby added more value in the system overall) and the resources that would have done the same.

The government cannot keep everyone employed for the simple sake of employment. You would bankrupt the system as that labor is wasted on project that are of no added value.

Now, that does not mean that the government should not be building roads but that such things should not be constructed as an excuse to provide work (or a means to eat) but rather constructed because of the value added into the system.

Also, hunger ‘insecurity’ is an asinine measurement. For the most part, Americans do not experience hunger and the few that do are mostly because the parents are unwilling to provide irrelevant to the ability to do so. This entire nation is awash in food so much so that our number one problem is eating too damn much not too little. Real starvation exists in this world and it is extremely ugly. It looks nothing like the ‘hunger’ in this nation. That is why they don’t even call it starving or hungry anymore and had to replace it with a vapid and meaningless term – hunger insecurity.

Our current understanding of natural rights makes us fools. Economic rights must go hand in hand with natural rights, otherwise civil rights are good but secondary (hence useless) to people in need of food. Again, I'm not saying the gov't must provide everyone with food stamps or a safety net, rather, they should offer a means to the end of acquiring sustenance. This would eliminate the need for a food stamp program since everyone is assured productive means through which they can earn their livelihood. Could this happen in America? Yes. Will it? Not likely.

This article is very well written by my favorite philosopher and explains this difference.
Fraternity Reigns - NYTimes.com

?

Natural rights include economic rights. The right to personal property is a cornerstone of almost all the rights we have and the core of all economic rights.

I have a sneaking suspicion that you are not referring to economic rights as all but rather the right to OTHERS economic achievements. Such a concept is an extremely twisted version of so called rights. Your natural rights covers all you need, the rest you create with the freedom that you have from the protection of those rights.

 

[gnarlylove]

Gov't is nothing special with special powers. It is simply the organization of people to address their concerns.

Government is granted a monopoly on violence. That's the essential deal of the social contract. We forfeit our rights to employ violence personally, and vest that power exclusively with government to use in narrowly prescribed circumstances (as defined by the Constitution, in the case of the US). That's the 'special power' that makes government different that all other institutions.

You've taken my response out of context. I wasn't making a general statement. I was replying to FAQ2.

Now who is in the gov't is monumentally important. If the people controlled the gov't like we are told we do, then when popular opinion says something, the gov't responds. But we all know it doesn't work that way. Instead, we have elites who operate gov't. It's not that their bad people, rather, it's just the nature of the structure. Either they participate in the elite interests or they are ousted. Public opinion is a slight consideration as noted by a recent congressman (or some study) that said "96% of the time when an issue is undecided officials turn to written letters/emails for thought." It is important to notice what is not being said as much as what is being said by this. When an issue is decided, public opinion is not considered. So take 80% of the pop. wants gun legislation. This didn't pass because the elites saw it differently. How can it be democracy when 80% (margin of error less than 3%) of the people disagree?

I'm not really sure how much this is the case, but I find it interesting because the point of view seems to be that the main dysfunction with government is that it isn't responsive to the will of the people, and that if it were, everything would be fine. Some of the worst policies are those that most actually do cater to the 'will of the people', so this seems like a dubious position at best.

You can't just denounce genuine democracy in principle because past events have shown the majority can be wrong or brutal. I am talking about America today. Despite the heavy propaganda that the US gov't undertakes (education is the indoctrination of the young) the people still widely opposed the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, more so than they did during early Vietnam. This seems to be the right choice which coincides with the will of the people. But the gov't did not follow it just like it didn't the populations opinion on gun laws.

The free-er a population is, the more likely they will oppose oppressive policy, whether it effects them or not. The will of the people is largely inculcated through k-12 but we have still managed to break free in certain aspects and oppose violence. Imagine what a society that is educated to believe violence must be justified or simply not to engage in it.

Without sustenance, natural rights are obsolete. In fact, natural rights are obsolete themselves given leaps and bounds in our civilization as a nation.

What does this mean?

Back in 18th and 19th century, America waged violence against labor movements killing some 200 or 300 people during that period. American gov't can no longer do this. It is unacceptable. Moreover, it's largely unacceptable to use a fire hydrant hose to spray blacks for marching for equal rights.

We have civilized more. We have long way to go but in coming this far we must update out dated notions of natural rights. Again, check out fraternity reigns to get an idea of what I'm saying.

To me a civilized person cannot accept that another human suffers for the reason of bad economic policy aimed against them without justification other than the rich want more or somehow "deserve" another 5 million like Jamie Dimon. Such is only acceptable if you literally have no empathy or believe Jamie Dimon needs that extra salary. Both are outlandish and detrimental to productive society. By Jamie Dimon receiving a pay increase, it does nothing but allow him to hoard more wealth from the general population thus being able to influence gov't policy more.

No child can succeed if their parents cannot find work to support their needs. 1 in 7 children in America experience hunger insecurity. This is not civilized treatment. It is easily conceivable with US resources that each person willing to participate in society through work (building high speed rail, renewable energy, tutoring, counseling of prisoners instead of literally inculcating hatred for the system on and on). I'm not saying the gov't provides the jobs, I'm saying the gov't uses its authority to generate jobs mostly through structures and institutions that already exist including many private institutions that already counsel, build solar etc etc.

How is that different from providing jobs?

My point was more about gov't using authority to tell companies to expand departments that can train and create productive citizens in an area that the citizen chooses. Thus the worker is kinda satisfied to do what they are doing and is likely to do a decent job at it since not long ago they were in need of any work. A particular idea is high speed rail which the gov't would partially fund existing companies to expand to create jobs building a key element to a sustainable future.

None of this is likely to happen before a major institutional breakdown sadly because the poeple don't control the gov't, the elite do. So such concern for unemployed Americans is not even on their radar, hence, not on gov't radar either.

 

[gnarlylove]

FAQ2, when you say things like people are inferior or are paid less because of their shoddy labor gives me no hope to have a reasonable discussion with you. I doubt you have taken any time to study the work of various people in order to determined those who are paid less deserve what they make. This is factually incorrect but it won't do me any good to argue why since you will hold onto your beliefs regardless of what I say. That is indeed the theme of the American intellectual life: "stick to your guns."

I just wanna say I respect you but as far as your ideas go, that is another matter.

 

[william the wie]

FAQ2, when you say things like people are inferior or are paid less because of their shoddy labor gives me no hope to have a reasonable discussion with you. I doubt you have taken any time to study the work of various people in order to determined those who are paid less deserve what they make. This is factually incorrect but it won't do me any good to argue why since you will hold onto your beliefs regardless of what I say. That is indeed the theme of the American intellectual life: "stick to your guns."

I just wanna say I respect you but as far as your ideas go, that is another matter.

You are not attempting a reasonable discussion. People differ but genetic differences are demonstratively easier to treat than those of nurture to correct those require supervised child rearing, which is pretty statist.

There are no corrective drugs for an addicted or chemically imbalanced parent.

 

[dblack]

You can't just denounce genuine democracy in principle because past events have shown the majority can be wrong or brutal. I am talking about America today. Despite the heavy propaganda that the US gov't undertakes (education is the indoctrination of the young) the people still widely opposed the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, more so than they did during early Vietnam. This seems to be the right choice which coincides with the will of the people. But the gov't did not follow it just like it didn't the populations opinion on gun laws.

I'm not denouncing democracy. Just saying that the lack of it isn't the main problem with our government. The main problem is the lack of enforced limits on its power.

The free-er a population is, the more likely they will oppose oppressive policy, whether it effects them or not.

Agreed. This is why I'm so opposed to creating dependency on government. People who are dependent on government for life's necessities aren't as likely to oppose it. And they'll be more willing to support oppressive policy when it promises to provide them with even more benefits.

Back in 18th and 19th century, America waged violence against labor movements killing some 200 or 300 people during that period. American gov't can no longer do this. It is unacceptable. Moreover, it's largely unacceptable to use a fire hydrant hose to spray blacks for marching for equal rights.

We have civilized more. We have long way to go but in coming this far we must update out dated notions of natural rights.

What is outdated about our current understanding of political rights? What are you getting at?

To me a civilized person cannot accept that another human suffers for the reason of bad economic policy aimed against them without justification other than the rich want more or somehow "deserve" another 5 million like Jamie Dimon.

A civilized person doesn't have to. A civilized person can help his fellows in need. A civilized person refuse to do business with Jamie Dimon. But should a civilized person force his neighbors to follow his lead?

....I'm not saying the gov't provides the jobs, I'm saying the gov't uses its authority to generate jobs mostly through structures and institutions that already exist including many private institutions that already counsel, build solar etc etc.

How is that different from providing jobs?

My point was more about gov't using authority to tell companies to expand departments that can train and create productive citizens in an area that the citizen chooses.

And that seems better to you than government providing the jobs directly? Do you understand why many of us see your ideology as ultimately authoritarian?

 

[Drake_Roberts]

The role of government is to ensure men don't take advantage of their fellow man. To ensure men don't kill each other (something they fail at miserably). If all governments worked for peace and one global nation, think about the problems that could be solved!

Resources could be allocated fairly.
Wars could be ceased.
Scientists could all pool their researches towards common goals like cheap, efficient renewable fuels, or effective space travel.
Developing nation could be developed faster.
Industry could spread at a faster rate.
If one area is struggling, the world can help to stop the decline.
Disease could be all but eradicated.
Mankind could promote understanding as a whole.
People all over could have equal rights.
Starvation could be eliminated.
Etc.
Off topic, but, if all governments worked like they should, that is the world we would live in.

Jeeezz what a crock,,do-gooder cry cry

You prefer the splintering and hatred and war between nations on a global scale to one global power/nation that unites all nations? And no, not the UN. Something stronger and more binding and more uniform.

 

[georgephillip]

The role of government is to ensure men don't take advantage of their fellow man. To ensure men don't kill each other (something they fail at miserably). If all governments worked for peace and one global nation, think about the problems that could be solved!

Resources could be allocated fairly.
Wars could be ceased.
Scientists could all pool their researches towards common goals like cheap, efficient renewable fuels, or effective space travel.
Developing nation could be developed faster.
Industry could spread at a faster rate.
If one area is struggling, the world can help to stop the decline.
Disease could be all but eradicated.
Mankind could promote understanding as a whole.
People all over could have equal rights.
Starvation could be eliminated.
Etc.
Off topic, but, if all governments worked like they should, that is the world we would live in.

Any government that ruled in the manner you've described would have to be free of all undue influence from private wealth; perhaps such a public institution could only begin by taxing large private fortunes into extinction, particularly if one purpose of government should be to effect the greatest good for the greatest number of its citizens?

 

[TemplarKormac]

The purpose of government...

That's a complicated question. It is supposed to ensure the general welfare of the people, not by subsidizing them but by protecting them. It's purpose is not to enter into arguments about morality, as it should remain neutral in such matters. It's purpose is to defend the Constitution, not pervert it. Whatever purpose, such is defined by the Constitution.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

The purpose of government is to convince citizens they have some say in how things are run, and to conceal the fact that they don't and corporations are actually in charge.

When two politicians run for a contested position, the one with more corporate donors wins every time. No such thing as a politician who got into office without such aide.

 

[regent]

At one time one of the purposes of government was to ensure that slavery was not to be eliminated, and yet that purpose seems to have changed. So my question: does the purpose of government change based on time, conditions, progress and any number of factors, but does it change? Has America altered the purpose of government since the Constitution and Declaration? Assuming America continues for another 200 years will America change to meet new purposes? Are the purposes of government always behind the needs of the people? If so why, and what is the American people's greatest need today, now?

 

[norwegen]

At one time one of the purposes of government was to ensure that slavery was not to be eliminated, and yet that purpose seems to have changed. So my question: does the purpose of government change based on time, conditions, progress and any number of factors, but does it change? Has America altered the purpose of government since the Constitution and Declaration? Assuming America continues for another 200 years will America change to meet new purposes? Are the purposes of government always behind the needs of the people? If so why, and what is the American people's greatest need today, now?

Are you talking about the American government? Can you tell us where this was codified?

Government need not change to accommodate progress in society. The DoI didn't create technology and prosperity. Society created those things because of the DoI.

To be sure, a government that is rooted, that is stable and predictable, is one that inherently allows for an advancing society.

 

[Mathbud1]

Succeeding in present day means institutional robbery for elite Wall St. execs. They need not worry about blunders and mistakes unlike the 99%, the gov't is there to bail them out. There are plenty of alternatives that could have happened in 2008 but the choices made gave massive bonuses and consolidated power making them even more dominant. The recent book that came out explains the elite culture in detail called "Young Money." A fabulous excerpt on how the elites are so distant from the concerns of Americans.

I don't think it is realistic to paint success with that broad of a brush. Not everyone who is successful is a crook. Some people who are successful are so because of hard work and determination. Demonizing the rich in a broad brush fashion is unrealistic.

So given the way the world is I think succeeding is highly detrimental beyond a certain level. Do I think in principle "succeeding" is inherently detrimental? No. It could easily be imagined that succeeding doesn't lead to such blatant inequality but alas we don't live in that world.

So what level of success is OK? Don't allow people to shoot for the stars, only the top of a small hill or something? Succeed beyond this point and we will take anything else you earn?

Our gov't serves to protect power and wealth, protecting the elite's interests and so this will not change without massive public support and even then it's questionable. Just take a look at how much support existed for the "Public Option" and it was totally dismissed (Affordable Care Act).

This sounds like a complaint about a government that has reached beyond the bounds of power that it should have. But you seem to be advocating giving government more power. Does it not seem likely that more government would only lead to more corruption?

We need to understand why there is inequality in the first place.

There is inequality because people are not inherently equal. We declare that men are possessed of some inalienable rights out of principle. We believe that all men should be held equally before the law. None of that changes the fact that people are naturally unequal. Some people are smarter than others. Some people are faster. Some people are taller. Some people are stronger. Some are more attractive. Inequality exists in nature because it is natural. It doesn't have to be caused by anything. Equality is the unnatural state that would have to be forced into being. Complete equality is only possible in a dream (or nightmare) world.

There are a finite amount of resources to sustain human beings and so distribution can be fair or not. I don't advocate for a homogeneous distribution, but it is a moral outrage to take note of poverty in the US. Wikipedia has a good article on this.

What would fair distribution mean to you? If homogeneous distribution would not be fair what would?

So it's both areas we need to work on reigning in. Otherwise one will continue to counter progress in the other. Why? Because there is finite resources that must be reasonably distributed.

And who will distribute those resources?

The main problem I see with poverty is not that people are poor per se--many spiritually aware people choose to have less. Rather, my main concern is how institutionalized poverty is. Having grown up in a poor area (avg. income 29,000/yr in 2011) and later traveling to major cities and seeing what major poverty can be like, even being homeless myself eating from trash cans, it is just jaw-dropping. You can't get a meal but unprecedented abundance exists all around you. Knowing the intimate stories of 100s, I know the struggles like the back of my hand that are results of poverty. The problem isn't that people don't make effort (though in some cases this is true) the major issue is the lack of opportunity that defeats their outlook. It starts with birth which one does not obviously choose. Being born into poverty one can expect lower quality education which in turn does not sufficiently prepare them for the workforce or encourage them to dream. It goes on and on from malnutrition effecting brain development as a child right up to adult life. It forces them to subordinate in order to survive.

So there are so many institutions and policies that exist to control the population, esp. the poor. So I argue we need to provide opportunities for them, not just tell them try harder. One has no reason to try harder if it won't result in benefits and this is the case. Hence I argue the gov't use its resources to help poor communities to be employed or something along those lines.

 

[Bombur]

The purpose of the government is to defend the rights of the people, to ensure the safety of the people in the nation, to ensure the continued prosperity of the nation, and to represent the interests of the people. The priority is pretty much in the order listed.

 

[FA_Q2]

FAQ2, when you say things like people are inferior or are paid less because of their shoddy labor gives me no hope to have a reasonable discussion with you. I doubt you have taken any time to study the work of various people in order to determined those who are paid less deserve what they make. This is factually incorrect but it won't do me any good to argue why since you will hold onto your beliefs regardless of what I say. That is indeed the theme of the American intellectual life: "stick to your guns."

I just wanna say I respect you but as far as your ideas go, that is another matter.

That is a complete cop out and you know it. Further, the bold portion is an outright lie. I never stated that people are inferior. I didn’t even state that their labor was ‘shoddy.’ I stated that their labor was less valuable and that is a cold hard fact. I can’t fathom how you could argue that the doctor's labor is not more valuable than the janitor that mops the floors. It is irrelevant how 'hard' you perceive the work to be, one is more valuable than the other. It is a fact that those making less are doing so because the labor they provide is worth less.

You have not lost hope that you can have a reasonable discussion because I stated those things. You lost hoe because you are stuck in an ideology that requires theft from some to cover for others. An ideology that has universally failed.

It seems that you are unable to refute the points being made and have resorted to bowing out. That is a shame.

 

[gnarlylove]

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.

 

[gnarlylove]

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.