What should a community/nation/state (government) provide for citizens?
nada
police courts military roads fire protection education limited housing limited healthcare retirement insurance unemployment insurance universal healthcare food housing clothing energy Copy only the items you think should be provided and paste them into your response field. Explain your choices as little or as much as you like. |
police
courts ---- Judicial system military ---Defense only roads fire protection education retirement insurance--- Social Security unemployment insurance--- Self Funding food housing clothing------ Temporary Emergency Situations universal healthcare-- Government run single payer system -- The heavily funded by the libertarian Koch family Mercatus Center says Medicare-for-All would save us $2.054 TRILLION in 10 years. |
any of the above that a fairly-elected representative government decides should be managed that way
|
And other stuff too, like regulating public resources for the greatest good for individuals.
|
Quote:
|
Yes. And radio frequencies, etc.
Let's say there is a new colony located at the base of a forest covered mountain. It's very Henry Quirkish where the government just lets people be. And the townsfolk need firewood, so each day the fair citizens go up into the foothills and cut down some trees. After a while, the forest has receded, and the mudslides begin, wiping out the town below. If they had a government regulating how much wood could be taken, and how, the forest could be sustained and also provide some lumber/firewood, and the town doesn't get buried in the mudslide. It's the kind of thing you need a government to control because left to their own devices, each person is going to think that surely cutting down this one tree today for myself isn't going to be a problem. |
Glatt,
You describe a 'tragedy of the commons'. Consider: a new colony located at the base of a forest covered mountain. There is no formal governmrnt and each colonist is a self-directing type. Immediately folks get to claiming property left and right. Of course there'll be skirmishes and jumped claims and bloodshed, but once the dust settles there won't be a 'commons'. The self-regulation of such an arrangement, I think, is superior to regulation from the outside (or 'above'). |
Bruce (and others), you pretty much want the whole schmear...
...for everyone, I'm guessin'.
What's the 'cost' of such a thing? |
Quote:
"The commons" is not just "unclaimed land". It is also "the forest" that covers all the land parcels. It is in everyone's interest for the forest to be healthy, but it's in each individual's interest to exploit it in their preferred way. If too many of them sell off their lumber, a mudslide takes them all out. |
please, consult the opening post: i wanna see your list
"It's substantially inferior"
I disagree. # "It's in each individual's interest for the forest to be healthy and used wisely." Yep. |
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Attachment 64476 |
"Left to their own devices, people time and time again act in a greedy way..."
"If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind" -Frederic Bastiat
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
http://www.worldometers.info/
There 7,640,184,300 (and counting) people on earth. Climate change is increasing exponentially. Food, water and air supplies are stretched to breaking. The questions henry asks come way too late. The biosphere is toast. |
"If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good?"
Because in a proper representative government, we the people are the organizers. |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:35 PM. |
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.