It’s true. Crime pays. Taking people’s money can have its benefits.

Hey if you don't like government, check out Somalia. Let us know what you think about it.

Hey if you don't like government, check out Somalia. Let us know what you think about it. — LuckyR

Hey, the fact that some nations are worse than us, doesn't mean that our system works perfectly.

The ridiculous thing is folks posting such nonsense using the internet, when the internet would never have existed due to a lack of research funding if money was only ever spent on "products and services" — LuckyR

Just like the highway system, many things have become into existence because defense matters.

Hey if you don't like government, check out Somalia. Let us know what you think about it. — LuckyR

You know who made it that way, bubba?

If you like government so much, maybe you’d like Somalia better when they had one. It had all the regular stuff: totalitarianism, corruption, political oppression, and of course they turned their weapons on their own citizens and committed genocide. I guess they got their tax dollar’s worth.

Hey, the fact that some nations are worse than us, doesn't mean that our system works perfectly.

Ha ha. First, Somalia isn't merely "worse than us", it's total chaos. Why? Specifically because of a lack of government. As to working perfectly, that's a fake goal. No one claims it does, or reasonably should.

You know who made it that way, bubba?

Well son, historically the British and Italians colonized what is now Somalia, so have to take the lion's share of the blame. As to it's modern history, it kind of started with it's internal warring factions back in the 60s.

Ha ha. First, Somalia isn't merely "worse than us", it's total chaos. Why? Specifically because of a lack of government. — LuckyR

As well as here in Spain then. :roll:
It is not necessary to go to Africa to see chaotic nations. We have a tumultuous public administration too.
We are just lucky because we are the summer resort of the rest of the European Union members. We would be completely ignored otherwise...

Somalia isn't merely "worse than us", it's total chaos. Why? Specifically because of a lack of government. — LuckyR

It's total chaos because after the first set of 'great' powers finally left it alone, the next set of 'great' powers got involved and tore the country apart again.

So comments like this...

Hey if you don't like government, check out Somalia. — LuckyR

... make you seem rather ignorant.

If you like government so much, maybe you’d like Somalia better when they had one. It had all the regular stuff: totalitarianism, corruption, political oppression, and of course they turned their weapons on their own citizens and committed genocide. I guess they got their tax dollar’s worth. — NOS4A2

Just because some governments fail (and actively hurt their people), that doesn't mean government in general won't work. That situation wasn't caused by the inherently negative effects of government, but rather the poor hand the nation was dealt (economically, historically, and socially). And as if there wouldn't be oppression, mass murder, and exploitation without the government, which generally minimizes chaos. The problem is indicative of deeper social divisions and an unstable, dysfunctional political environment.

I think your argument is pretty state/government dependent. You are trying to give as granted that we cannot live without state intervention, despite that even most of the cases this operation ends up terribly. One of the main points is that most of the governments, in the long term, become useless and they will not work to make the things altogether.

Deep social divisions and dysfunctional political environment are big issues and they affect the management of the state. But this is usually caused by governments and not citizens who try to live individually and they cannot do so, because the state (or local government) forces you to have "ideologies" to be part of a "community".

If you like government so much, maybe you’d like Somalia better when they had one. It had all the regular stuff: totalitarianism, corruption, political oppression, and of course they turned their weapons on their own citizens and committed genocide. I guess they got their tax dollar’s worth.

Part of the problem with criticizing "government" without providing an alternative is it leaves one open to the assumption that one trusts corporations and/or powerful individuals to act fairly or even charitably towards the public, which is, of course naive in the extreme.

It might work. But the utilitarian argument for government doesn’t cut it for me. Slave plantations worked. Some treated their slaves better than others. But none of that eliminates the immorality of the plantation system.

It’s the same with government. No state has ever began with any sort of voluntary social contract or disinterested view of promoting justice and order. Any attempt to do so was always ancillary to their main purpose. States are imposed in order to protect power and exploit those under its dominion, enabling a small class of beneficiaries to satisfy themselves through various confiscations, like the taxing powers and legal system.

You are trying to give as granted that we cannot live without state intervention, despite that even most of the cases this operation ends up terribly. — javi2541997

While we can live in smaller communities (which tend to have their own, if small, form of government), the fact that the state persists throughout history shows its necessity, originally a defense against the outsiders, and more recently, a protection of the citizen. Of course, the state also exists to defend itself, which can be achieved through violence or tolerance. You say that in most cases, this "ends up terribly". In what way do you think that is true?

One of the main points is that most of the governments, in the long term, become useless and they will not work to make the things altogether. — javi2541997

Most things in the long term become useless. For governments, that could take centuries. After that, a new government almost inevitably takes the old one's place. The important thing is what occurs while the government is still effective (does it defend the people's interests), whether it is sustainable for a decent amount of time, and whether the transition of power to the next government is successful.

But this is usually caused by governments and not citizens who try to live individually and they cannot do so, because the state (or local government) forces you to have "ideologies" to be part of a "community". — javi2541997

Again, humans naturally form communities as an inherently social species. Even apes form tribes, and without a discernible form of government, they still participate in warfare (and sometimes, genocide). To say that this is solely the state's fault is to forget human nature. That does not mean that a government is not complicit or responsible for doing terrible things; only that individuals are, too.

People are atoms. All relationships are transactional. I'm an idiot homo economicus. It's tiresome to read ideological screeds from wannabe Thatcherites and Reaganites that missed the last 40 years of economic research.

That’s true. But we could trust ourselves, our families, our friends, our communities, without seeking the blessing from some distant authority. We could fully and easily reject corporations and powerful individuals, especially if there were no state mechanisms with which they could achieve monopoly, subsidy, contracts, and power.

I would argue large corporations want high taxes. They have the means to game the system, find tax havens, employ teams of lawyers, lobby the government, while the smaller businesses suffer the high costs of doing business, eliminating much of the competition. And there are many ways to avoid the rise in costs, like raising prices on consumers or freezing wage growth for employees.

Slave plantations worked. Some treated their slaves better than others. But none of that eliminates the immorality of the plantation system. — NOS4A2

Which was the sole result of economics. It was profitable, it was immoral, and it was done. This is exactly what would happen without the protection of the government. Yes, governments can worsen crises if they also behave immorally, like the European governments who encouraged the slave trade. But at least the government (in its democratic form) is accountable, while individuals are not if a proper justice system doesn't exist.

No state has ever began with any sort of voluntary social contract or disinterested view of promoting justice and order — NOS4A2

This may be true, but at least citizens can modify the contract via voting. Because of this, the nature of government has changed drastically in the past two centuries, with an increased emphasis on social welfare.

States are imposed in order to protect power and exploit those under its dominion, enabling a small class of beneficiaries to satisfy themselves through various confiscations, like the taxing powers and legal system. — NOS4A2

Does that not occur economically? I'd much rather a government, which I help elect, take 20% of my paycheck than have rampant monopolies price-gouge the consumer with poverty wages, or literally sell my life to make ends meet. And at least that 20% funds the livelihoods of millions of government employees and the unemployed, and provides me with essential services that would otherwise be monopolized, rather than feeding the incessant greed of a few thousand robber barons.

I'd much rather a government, which I help elect, take 20% of my paycheck than have rampant monopolies price-gouge the consumer with poverty wages, or literally sell my life to make ends meet. And at least that 20% funds the livelihoods of millions of government employees and the unemployed, and provides me with essential services that would otherwise be monopolized, rather than feeding the incessant greed of a few thousand robber barons. — finarfin

This juxtaposition makes little sense to me, because I don't think governments prevent monopolies from forming, rather monopolies seem to form way more easily as a result of government regulations.

Does that not occur economically? I'd much rather a government, which I help elect, take 20% of my paycheck than have rampant monopolies price-gouge the consumer with poverty wages, or literally sell my life to make ends meet. And at least that 20% funds the livelihoods of millions of government employees and the unemployed, and provides me with essential services that would otherwise be monopolized, rather than feeding the incessant greed of a few thousand robber barons. — finarfin

I agree. In the “short” term of generations. In the longer term, we really should abolish the state. Not governance or social organization, but the state.

What our libertarian friends don’t seem to understand, and which ultimately makes them apologists for illegitimate power, is that the real power doesn’t currently belong to the state. It belongs to the plutocracy who own and run the state.

Rather than going after the real rot and the socioeconomic system that allows this rot, they blather on about the far-off goal of eliminating the state. It’s like dealing with an adolescent who’s latched on to a fashionable belief and dogmatically abides by it, all the while ignoring the evidence all around that points to something different.

If we want to solve the problems of the day, we have to recognize the main causes.

If it’s corporate power, we should be encouraging the labor movement— they’re against “big labor.”

We should encourage unionization— they’re against unions (“collectivism!”).

We should be pushing our leaders for progressive policies — they’re against this too (“Government is the problem”).

The plutocracy must love these people. They get to act like they support small businesses and workers and communities, while advocating for goals that completely destroy them. What gets proposed as solutions?

First, blame the state for all the world’s ills. Then destroy and dismantle the state and leave things to the magic of the “free market.”

The way they tell it, one might be convinced that this may actually work. Friedman did it better than any of them — and they’re all illegitimate little Friedmans and Randians anyway — but it was always a fantasy on par with communist fantasies (which they have no problem recognizing).

When policies based on these ideas get tried, and fail, they can always fall back on the fact that it was never “really” tried or implemented, or didn’t go far enough.

It’s a great religion. Can’t be refuted, some half-truths, a few simplistic principles to memorize, etc. This way one doesn’t have to analyze the real world. Because that’s too messy.

Which was the sole result of economics. It was profitable, it was immoral, and it was done. This is exactly what would happen without the protection of the government. Yes, governments can worsen crises if they also behave immorally, like the European governments who encouraged the slave trade. But at least the government (in its democratic form) is accountable, while individuals are not if a proper justice system doesn't exist.

The slave trade occurred with the protection and intervention of government, with the granting of slave-trade monopolies and charters, the treaties, the slave codes, the military protection, to the funding of colonialism and mercantilism that required all that cheap labor. It was only begrudgingly and under great public pressure that such efforts were eventually abolished. And so it is with anything that tends to human rights and welfare.

The Hobbesian notion that justice is a one-to-one ratio with a state legal system is a mistake, in my opinion. Justice systems are more often than not unjust. In order to discern whether a system is unjust or not, one must first form a sense of justice in order to compare it to that state system of justice, and this must occur outside and beyond any state justice system. At any rate, I hold that it is easier to pressure and affect change morally and economically than it is to pressure and affect a government and its laws politically.

This may be true, but at least citizens can modify the contract via voting. Because of this, the nature of government has changed drastically in the past two centuries, with an increased emphasis on social welfare.

The nature of government has changed drastically insofar as it has grown in size and has monopolized, captured, and converted social power into state power. So far has it gone that we cannot imagine achieving social welfare without government. The result is a people conditioned to seek state intervention rather than to develop their responsibilities to one another. The result is a people who believe consuming, working, paying taxes, and voting for more state power, is tantamount to compassion and welfare. I fear that, as far as welfare is concerned, people only want government do what they themselves refuse to.

Does that not occur economically? I'd much rather a government, which I help elect, take 20% of my paycheck than have rampant monopolies price-gouge the consumer with poverty wages, or literally sell my life to make ends meet. And at least that 20% funds the livelihoods of millions of government employees and the unemployed, and provides me with essential services that would otherwise be monopolized, rather than feeding the incessant greed of a few thousand robber barons.

All I can say is that the government is the monopoly par excellence.

That’s true. But we could trust ourselves, our families, our friends, our communities, without seeking the blessing from some distant authority. We could fully and easily reject corporations and powerful individuals, especially if there were no state mechanisms with which they could achieve monopoly, subsidy, contracts, and power.

Which would work in the pre-industrial era. But society benefits from large public works projects that small groups of families or even neighborhoods don't have the resources can finance. Thus the role for a "distant authority".