What should a community/nation/state (government) provide for citizens?

henry quirk · 08-01-2018, 11:38 AM

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.

xoxoxoBruce · 08-01-2018, 10:02 PM

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.

Undertoad · 08-01-2018, 10:55 PM

any of the above that a fairly-elected representative government decides should be managed that way

glatt · 08-02-2018, 07:44 AM

And other stuff too, like regulating public resources for the greatest good for individuals.

xoxoxoBruce · 08-02-2018, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glatt

And other stuff too, like regulating public resources for the greatest good for individuals.

Public resources? Do you mean like petroleum, natural gas, minerals, timber, water, etc?

glatt · 08-02-2018, 10:48 AM

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.

henry quirk · 08-02-2018, 11:53 AM

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').

Diaphone Jim · 08-02-2018, 03:04 PM

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.

Undertoad · 08-02-2018, 03:38 PM

"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.

henry quirk · 08-02-2018, 06:08 PM

"Cost of everything? For health care, $2 Trillion less than we spend now, for the rest, a lot less than the cost of not having them."

I'm thinkin' more of the 'cost' of 'from each, according to ability; to each, according to need'. No doubt some folks will gladly pay up for such a deal, thin-blooded creatures thay are, happy to have 'need' satisfied.

Everyone 'needs', yeah?

Let's not forget, however, about the (slave) labor required to satisfy all that 'need'. As Glatt sez, 'people time and time again act in a greedy way to get ahead at the expense of society'. The greedy rich, the greedy poor, both want the same thing: that which doesn't belong to them.

You ready to serve, to pay the incalculable 'cost'?

Mebbe you are...good on you, you selfless piece of meat.

#

"Theoretically, an individual decides between himself and others, whereas the legislator deciding between doing what's best for everyone or a few, with no(or very little) skin in the game."

Seems to me: inevitably, the legislator serves his own best interest, just like everyone else.

Put your 'faith' in 'you', is my advice (or squander it on 'finer clay' [if you can find it]).

xoxoxoBruce · 08-02-2018, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by henry quirk

I'm thinkin' more of the 'cost' of 'from each, according to ability; to each, according to need'. No doubt some folks will gladly pay up for such a deal, thin-blooded creatures thay are, happy to have 'need' satisfied.

Although it weebled and wobbled for 200 years, our government pretty much worked that way until Reagan. Then "We the People" stopped participating and let special interests gobble congress.

Quote:

Let's not forget, however, about the (slave) labor required to satisfy all that 'need'. As Glatt sez, 'people time and time again act in a greedy way to get ahead at the expense of society'. The greedy rich, the greedy poor, both want the same thing: that which doesn't belong to them.

In places like Scandinavia they pay around half their pay in taxes. Recoil in horror, make the sign of the cross, wear garlic, load the guns Ma.
But wait, what do they get for that exorbitant fee? Can you say everything, boys and girls? Everything they need plus the lack of worry about ever needing. Maybe that's a good deal.

Quote:

Put your 'faith' in 'you', is my advice (or squander it on 'finer clay' [if you can find it]).

If I put my faith in me I will have to settle for less because even my best efforts are a pisshole in a snowbank compared to the power of the collective we.

henry quirk · 08-02-2018, 06:10 PM

https://wattsupwiththat.com/

henry quirk · 08-02-2018, 06:22 PM

Is that what we have, toad?

Can you can point to a time when we (or anyone) had such a 'fine' thing?

I look at your rep gov, your democracy, and I see grasping hands barely kept in check by other, equally grasping, hands.

You enshrine the grasping hands of 'the mob', claim it's 'proper' cuz 'we the people are the organizers'...more of that 'finer clay'.

Be careful what you wish for.

henry quirk · 08-02-2018, 06:32 PM

"It is indisputable that it is not safe to permit EVERYBODY to be free to do whatever they want."

And who sorts that out, separates the wheat from the chaff?

The 'finer clay'.

Faith.

Happy Monkey · 08-03-2018, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by henry quirk

"It is indisputable that it is not safe to permit EVERYBODY to be free to do whatever they want."

And who sorts that out, separates the wheat from the chaff?

The rest of the paragraph.

08-01-2018, 11:38 AM	#1
henry quirk maskless: yesterday, today, tomorrow Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 2,162	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. Last edited by henry quirk; 08-01-2018 at 11:50 AM.

08-01-2018, 10:02 PM	#2
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	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. __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.

08-02-2018, 06:10 PM	#12
henry quirk maskless: yesterday, today, tomorrow Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 2,162	"Climate change is increasing exponentially." https://wattsupwiththat.com/

08-02-2018, 06:22 PM	#13
henry quirk maskless: yesterday, today, tomorrow Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 2,162	"a proper representative government" Is that what we have, toad? Can you can point to a time when we (or anyone) had such a 'fine' thing? I look at your rep gov, your democracy, and I see grasping hands barely kept in check by other, equally grasping, hands. You enshrine the grasping hands of 'the mob', claim it's 'proper' cuz 'we the people are the organizers'...more of that 'finer clay'. Be careful what you wish for.

08-02-2018, 06:32 PM	#14
henry quirk maskless: yesterday, today, tomorrow Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 2,162	Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a WINNER! "It is indisputable that it is not safe to permit EVERYBODY to be free to do whatever they want." And who sorts that out, separates the wheat from the chaff? The 'finer clay'. Faith.

08-01-2018, 10:55 PM	#3
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	any of the above that a fairly-elected representative government decides should be managed that way

08-02-2018, 07:44 AM	#4
glatt ™ Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Arlington, VA Posts: 27,717	And other stuff too, like regulating public resources for the greatest good for individuals.

08-02-2018, 10:48 AM	#6
glatt ™ Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Arlington, VA Posts: 27,717	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.

08-02-2018, 11:53 AM	#7
henry quirk maskless: yesterday, today, tomorrow Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 2,162	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').

08-02-2018, 03:04 PM	#8
Diaphone Jim Junior Master Dwellar Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Northern California Posts: 2,122	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.

08-02-2018, 03:38 PM	#9
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	"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.

08-02-2018, 06:08 PM	#10
henry quirk maskless: yesterday, today, tomorrow Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 2,162	"Cost of everything? For health care, $2 Trillion less than we spend now, for the rest, a lot less than the cost of not having them." I'm thinkin' more of the 'cost' of 'from each, according to ability; to each, according to need'. No doubt some folks will gladly pay up for such a deal, thin-blooded creatures thay are, happy to have 'need' satisfied. Everyone 'needs', yeah? Let's not forget, however, about the (slave) labor required to satisfy all that 'need'. As Glatt sez, 'people time and time again act in a greedy way to get ahead at the expense of society'. The greedy rich, the greedy poor, both want the same thing: that which doesn't belong to them. You ready to serve, to pay the incalculable 'cost'? Mebbe you are...good on you, you selfless piece of meat. # "Theoretically, an individual decides between himself and others, whereas the legislator deciding between doing what's best for everyone or a few, with no(or very little) skin in the game." Seems to me: inevitably, the legislator serves his own best interest, just like everyone else. Put your 'faith' in 'you', is my advice (or squander it on 'finer clay' [if you can find it]).

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)