What is your thought on the role of a government in regards to its populace?

 

Should it be propping them up with welfare money when the economy is bad or acting more laissez faire? Should they be investing in long term improvements or immediate aid? Are the social programs such as social security, health care, welfare, etc. right or not to have? Should even some of the more conventional service such as police and firefighters be provided by the state? How much should a person's rights be regulated by the government? How true is the title of this thread?

 

Discuss, but remember to remain decent.

It would be interesting to see someone argue in favor of a laissez-faire economy (basically the traditional American economy circa 1800s).

 

However, I guess that my upbringing makes me inclined to favor a mixed economy where the government has some control. However, I'm not supportive of the type of economy that fascists and communists advocate: a government-controlled economy with very limited or no private ownership.

 

This is a stance that most people will probably take. Although I do not have a good argument other than this is what I have been conditioned to believe and have trouble advocating a government-controlled or laisez-faire economy, I do see how a welfare state can be horribly inefficient and costly. There are good arguments from both sides, so I'm sure that someone could pose these two arguments. In terms of what is best for the government, the abolition of the welfare state would be best since it saves the government money and allows it to fund other projects. However, one could argue that the government's main job is to take care of its own citizens, which is a fairly good argument.

 

Sorry for the lack of thought in my post (if you think that there's a lack of thought).

Teaching the man to fish still requires resources.

Police and firefighters and such should be provided by the state. That's something important, IMHO. If that isn't the case, the company that takes over these services would need to make profit, and since it would no longer be government funded, they'd have to get this money from the service they are offering. They would be charging people for a lot of things that people shouldn't be charged for.

 

Also, immediate help should only be given if the need suddenly arises for that (for example, an earthquake), but otherwise, long term investments are the way to go. I agree fully with the title of this thread, a government (or any kind of organization) should focus on helping whoever is in need to sustain themselves, instead of just giving them some food to make 'em shut up.

A completely laissez faire approach to social problems were shown not to work in Victorian Britain. Going back to a system that didn't work the first time makes no sense to me. We've benefited from labour reform, education reform, health reform and much greater social equality in the last 100 years or so because government has taken a better grasp of certain areas. There needs to be a balance where these things are in place while there are still incentives for people to work hard and become successful.

I read watched something interesting on a completely laissez faire scenario, where even the fire fighters were privately owned and someone's house was on fire and they refused to put it out because they hadn't payed their bill hahaha.

Sounds like Ancient Rome to me...forgot the guy's name.

 

Edit: Crassus

In Australia's terms, get the PM to stop fart-arsing around with "Global Warming" and boat people, and focus on the immense job loss/no jobs in New South Wales. Oh, and to stop giving welfare money to those lazy teens who aren't even using it properly. (i.e.: Drugs, Alcohol, Games,NOT using it for Job/Education) <_<

 

Yes, I have a huge vendetta against our government.

The government should only be used to protect us, maintain a respectful stance of fairness, and free up opportunities. Sticking with the fish, the government doesn't teach us to fish, only gives us fish. Free education of the sort will correct it.

Indy, teaching the man to fish does take resources, but even then it's so much less then feeding him for life.

 

In my opinion, I say take out all welfare and other such support programs. All the government should do is provide a police force and firefighters and the military. I left out education for a reason. Ever since education has been mostly funded by the government, the standards have kept dropping in schools and I don't like the idea that my friends don't have the vocabulary of a first grader in colonial times lol I say my friends because since I was in second grade I was considered to have a 12th grade reading level by some stupid standard they put on me >.>

 

And yeah you can go on and on about standardization, but you can only go so far with standards, whereas if we specialize we can do so much more with a healthy balance of different specializations.

I say let education be crap. After all, the companies you work for teach you THEIR way of doing things. :?

The title of this post sums up all I think about foreign aid. And I've actually thought if I was ever rich enough to start a charity sort of thing called The Teach A Man to Fish Foundation. We dump so much money overseas and we/ the world gets nothing in return. I was watching a Dirty Jobs once where they were castrating sheep. They only did this because their wool wasn't the best quality. Why not give these sheep to these countries to be used for meat and wool? Perhaps give is the wrong word. My foundation would buy these sheep, then give classes on how to properly feed and maintain them. If each person in an African village has a specialty then a basic barter system could work and I imagine quality of life could grow. If you trade a man 1 cow for 3 sacks of bread wha-la you now have a broader diet. Then that man butchers that cow and trades its hide to another man who gives him something. I'm probably not telling you anything you don't know but it seems to me that no one in a position of power has thought of this. The problem comes in when warlords come along and take everything, but they could trade for guns I suppose.

some people simply cannot provide for themselves. they must be given fish.

 

Those who can provide for themselves, should. they must be taught to fish.

 

Those taught to fish who choose not to fish still have human rights. They must be given fish to satisfy their human rights.

 

Those recieving fish from the government should live dignified, but not luxurious lives. They should work as much as they can for the fish they recieve.

 

Luxury fish are not a right, they are a privalige.

 

When the fishing is bad, a lower amount of fish must be shared between more people, if everyone is to have their meal.

 

Rich fishermen are morally obligated to feed their families, friends and enemies. The give back to the community that allows them to become rich fishermen because they could not be rich fishermen without the community. Rich fishermen have no right to be egotistical fishermen.

 

All fishermen benefit from nature around them. They have an obligation to leave nature as they found it at the end of their lives. No fishermen today live sustainably in that fashion.

 

Fish are individual, as are fishermen. Organizing fishing takes time and resources. the theory behind fishing is not difficult, the implementation of this theory in real life is.

Or, or, no one could be given fish. All fisherman would be expected to fish for themselves. Through a strong individual desire to obtain the most fish, most luxurious fish, and best fishing practices, the process of fishing will improve for the community and general standard of living will increase at an astounding rate, far beyond any system that just hands people other peoples fish and kills any incentive to fish more or better.

 

Hong Kong has awesome fishing. Look how awesome they're fish are. Frikin sweet.

 

 

Those taught to fish who choose not to fish still have human rights. They must be given fish to satisfy their human rights.

 

 

I disagree with that. In real life terms, this means that if someone knows how to do a specific job, but doesn't because they're too lazy, they should still get money for not doing anything at all. Basically, I could graduate high school, go sit at home and get money for it, because you say it's a human right. I disagree with that. You give up your rights if you're too lazy to work.

 

 

Those taught to fish who choose not to fish still have human rights. They must be given fish to satisfy their human rights.

 

 

I disagree with that. In real life terms, this means that if someone knows how to do a specific job, but doesn't because they're too lazy, they should still get money for not doing anything at all. Basically, I could graduate high school, go sit at home and get money for it, because you say it's a human right. I disagree with that. You give up your rights if you're too lazy to work.

you cannot possibly be saying that humans have no value if they make silly life choices, and therefore no rights! I am shocked.

 

you have to read what i said in its context though:

 

Those recieving fish from the government should live dignified, but not luxurious lives. They should work as much as they can for the fish they recieve.

 

Luxury fish are not a right, they are a privalige.

 

 

i'm advocating working for it. I.E. having to physically show up every morning to get your benefits, standing in lines etc. people shouldn't want to be on benefits. By making it tough, only those who really need help are going to bother getting that help, because a job would be the same effort for the same money.

 

Benefits should also be given in other forms than cash.

 

leaving people to die so a few people gc

My thoughts on the matter can be summed up in two great quotes:

"The best government is the government that governs the least." - Thomas Jefferson

"The government big enough to give you everything is eventually big enough to take everything from you." - Gerald R. Ford

 

The only reasons a 'federal' level government exists is to provide for the common defense in the form of an army, navy, air force, etc. Local governments should exist to provide fire and police protection, and to provide common standards for education, road upkeep, and other things essential to the success of the area.

 

Or, or, no one could be given fish. All fisherman would be expected to fish for themselves. Through a strong individual desire to obtain the most fish, most luxurious fish, and best fishing practices, the process of fishing will improve for the community and general standard of living will increase at an astounding rate, far beyond any system that just hands people other peoples fish and kills any incentive to fish more or better.

 

Hong Kong has awesome fishing. Look how awesome they're fish are. Frikin sweet.

I fully agree with this. No one should be given fish.

I say let education be crap. After all, the companies you work for teach you THEIR way of doing things. :?

:mellow:

Those taught to fish who choose not to fish still have human rights. They must be given fish to satisfy their human rights.

And this is where it becomes communism. No he does not deserve a fish. Giving him a fish is the same as theft, he did not work to earn that fish or give you anything in return for the fish, if you did not voluntarily choose to give him the fish it is theft. Let him starve and I GUARANTEE you he'll start fishing. Also what happens when no one wants to fish?

And this is where it becomes communism. No he does not deserve a fish. Giving him a fish is the same as theft, he did not work to earn that fish or give you anything in return for the fish, if you did not voluntarily choose to give him the fish it is theft. Let him starve and I GUARANTEE you he'll start fishing. Also what happens when no one wants to fish?

Ah, the right-wing extremist: "if you help someone it's communism!!!!!one!!!!!!1!" Either all or nothing, an ultimatium, not a reflection of the real world.

 

Once you disregard someone's humanity, you have started sliding down a frictionless slope towards moral abyss. He deserves a fish that will sustain him, but not luxury. If he wants to get the fish of society, he's damn well going to have to stand in line, get up every morning and do things like everyone else. you don't just hand them a freebie, no sir. But he deserves a fish, even if it's small, ugly and tastes bad it will sustain him. maybe it should be small, ugly and taste bad.

 

people don't deserve to die: you can't possibly be arguing for a stop to all human aid, for the sake of social darwinism: those are the policies of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. I doubt any sane human aspires to join their ideology. you cannot be saying that africa should be left to die on its own, that druggies should simply be left dead on the street, after all, noone should be obligated to pay for their burial, or removal...

you can't be advocating that those who genuinely cannot afford medical care should be left to die. That would make you a horrid, selfish human being completely lacking all empathy. You must mean something different than you imply.

 

What happens with the people who are unable to fish? what happens to the fishermen who want to fish, but can't get a spot on a boat? what happens to the man who forgets how to fish? what happens to the man who just doesn't catch any fish?

Right wingers are terribly offended by the prospect of giving a man a fish.

 

But giving the fish processing conglomerate -- whose CEO is a pal of a powerful politician -- a no-bid contract to provide $50,000,000 in fish to the government? That's just swell. :thumbup:

And this is where it becomes communism. No he does not deserve a fish. Giving him a fish is the same as theft, he did not work to earn that fish or give you anything in return for the fish, if you did not voluntarily choose to give him the fish it is theft. Let him starve and I GUARANTEE you he'll start fishing. Also what happens when no one wants to fish?

Ah, the right-wing extremist: "if you help someone it's communism!!!!!one!!!!!!1!" Either all or nothing, an ultimatium, not a reflection of the real world.

 

Once you disregard someone's humanity, you have started sliding down a frictionless slope towards moral abyss. He deserves a fish that will sustain him, but not luxury. If he wants to get the fish of society, he's damn well going to have to stand in line, get up every morning and do things like everyone else. you don't just hand them a freebie, no sir. But he deserves a fish, even if it's small, ugly and tastes bad it will sustain him. maybe it should be small, ugly and taste bad.

 

people don't deserve to die: you can't possibly be arguing for a stop to all human aid, for the sake of social darwinism: those are the policies of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. I doubt any sane human aspires to join their ideology. you cannot be saying that africa should be left to die on its own, that druggies should simply be left dead on the street, after all, noone should be obligated to pay for their burial, or removal...

you can't be advocating that those who genuinely cannot afford medical care should be left to die. That would make you a horrid, selfish human being completely lacking all empathy. You must mean something different than you imply.

 

What happens with the people who are unable to fish? what happens to the fishermen who want to fish, but can't get a spot on a boat? what happens to the man who forgets how to fish? what happens to the man who just doesn't catch any fish?

Thats why communism didn't last in Russia.... because the poor said, if I don't have to work but I still get what I need why work. So no It's isn't really an extreme. Do NOT twist my words.

 

Also I knew you would bring up the "what if he can't fish" which is different entirely because he CAN'T not CHOOSES NOT TO. Also any kind of fish is a freebie, I don't care if he digs a hole one day and fills it in the next, he earned that fish,but if he did nothing for it no he doesn't deserve it. The guy who can't get a spot on the boat can go to his local TAMTFF(Teach A Man To Fish Foundation) And say hey there's no room for me to fish I need a new way to feed myself, he learns how to hunt or farm or any number of things. The man who forgets how to fish can be taught again(but I personally think this is a really pathetic argument). The man who doesn't catch any fish can eat the extra fish he caught last time, or say neighbor, I have caught no fish today, but if you will please help me out when you catch no fish I'll help you out. Africa should be taught how to fish. There should be programs to help druggies that want to help themselves, I have no respect for anyone who doesn't respect themselves. And we ARE obligated to pay for our own burial, why do I pay for you if it isn't my fault you died?

 

I think the mistake you make is that you assume that can't and won't are the same thing. I assure you sir, they are not.

 

qeltar

I have no clue what you mean by the 50mil dollars in fish to the government thing. And from what I do understand what the hell does a contract have anything to do with personal sustenance? What is your problem with making money? And if that contract could have been done for 40mil by another guy who wasn't buddies with the politician it should have been. But that's corrupt politicians, not people not wanting to help out.

Thats why communism didn't last in Russia.... because the poor said, if I don't have to work but I still get what I need why work. So no It's isn't really an extreme. Do NOT twist my words.

 

Also I knew you would bring up the "what if he can't fish" which is different entirely because he CAN'T not CHOOSES NOT TO. Also any kind of fish is a freebie, I don't care if he digs a hole one day and fills it in the next, he earned that fish,but if he did nothing for it no he doesn't deserve it. The guy who can't get a spot on the boat can go to his local TAMTFF(Teach A Man To Fish Foundation) And say hey there's no room for me to fish I need a new way to feed myself, he learns how to hunt or farm or any number of things. The man who forgets how to fish can be taught again(but I personally think this is a really pathetic argument). The man who doesn't catch any fish can eat the extra fish he caught last time, or say neighbor, I have caught no fish today, but if you will please help me out when you catch no fish I'll help you out. Africa should be taught how to fish. There should be programs to help druggies that want to help themselves, I have no respect for anyone who doesn't respect themselves. And we ARE obligated to pay for our own burial, why do I pay for you if it isn't my fault you died?

 

I think the mistake you make is that you assume that can't and won't are the same thing. I assure you sir, they are not.

 

leaving people to die, because they don't deserve better. I have no respect for those who cannot feel compassion or empathy.

 

No. the problem is that there's little to economically viable way for for any government to determine who can't and who won't. Therefore, in real terms they are unequivocally similar. once you start seperating them, you're moving into the world of ideology, not the world of realism. Communism is perfect in theory, as is your idea. they simply don't work though.

 

You use communism as a term labelling any state with any degree of social security. Thus, you do in fact consider only the extreme. i am not twisting your words, you are generalizing everyone to be extremist, simply because you don't know better. look at Norway for instance, which is arguably a social democracy, which you group as a communist, autocratic regime. we have these policies, and just happen to be the country in the world the UN has repeatedly labled the best country to live in in the world. you label us as communnist, i label you ignorant.

 

Going to be re-taught does not put fish on the table. fishing does. What neighbour lends to someone with a small likelyhood of being able to repay the debt? just look at sub-prime mortages.

 

Tell those who are out of work, because they simply cannot be rehired anywhere (for instance in the case of economic downturn), that it's a pathetic argument that they actually cannot remmeber the details of their past occupation, after months of only applying for work, never practicing any of it. Tell those who have strokes, tell those whose fish become extinct, so they have to return to fishing techniques they haven't used in 20 years.

 

you want dead hobos littering your streets, because you shouldn't be the one paying for it. that's bellow the belt, human dignity, your own self-respect and all reason.

Actually this would be closer to leaving a man to starve to death because he's fully capable of, yet too lazy to get up and eat something.

It's different to provide for someone because he can't provide for himself than it is to provide for someone because he can't be bothered to provide for himself.

Thats why communism didn't last in Russia.... because the poor said, if I don't have to work but I still get what I need why work. So no It's isn't really an extreme. Do NOT twist my words.

 

Also I knew you would bring up the "what if he can't fish" which is different entirely because he CAN'T not CHOOSES NOT TO. Also any kind of fish is a freebie, I don't care if he digs a hole one day and fills it in the next, he earned that fish,but if he did nothing for it no he doesn't deserve it. The guy who can't get a spot on the boat can go to his local TAMTFF(Teach A Man To Fish Foundation) And say hey there's no room for me to fish I need a new way to feed myself, he learns how to hunt or farm or any number of things. The man who forgets how to fish can be taught again(but I personally think this is a really pathetic argument). The man who doesn't catch any fish can eat the extra fish he caught last time, or say neighbor, I have caught no fish today, but if you will please help me out when you catch no fish I'll help you out. Africa should be taught how to fish. There should be programs to help druggies that want to help themselves, I have no respect for anyone who doesn't respect themselves. And we ARE obligated to pay for our own burial, why do I pay for you if it isn't my fault you died?

 

I think the mistake you make is that you assume that can't and won't are the same thing. I assure you sir, they are not.

 

leaving people to die, because they don't deserve better. I have no respect for those who cannot feel compassion or empathy.

 

No. the problem is that there's little to economically viable way for for any government to determine who can't and who won't. Therefore, in real terms they are unequivocally similar. once you start seperating them, you're moving into the world of ideology, not the world of realism. Communism is perfect in theory, as is your idea. they simply don't work though.

 

You use communism as a term labelling any state with any degree of social security. Thus, you do in fact consider only the extreme. i am not twisting your words, you are generalizing everyone to be extremist, simply because you don't know better. look at Norway for instance, which is arguably a social democracy, which you group as a communist, autocratic regime. we have these policies, and just happen to be the country in the world the UN has repeatedly labled the best country to live in in the world. you label us as communnist, i label you ignorant.

 

Going to be re-taught does not put fish on the table. fishing does. What neighbour lends to someone with a small likelyhood of being able to repay the debt? just look at sub-prime mortages.

 

Tell those who are out of work, because they simply cannot be rehired anywhere (for instance in the case of economic downturn), that it's a pathetic argument that they actually cannot remmeber the details of their past occupation, after months of only applying for work, never practicing any of it. Tell those who have strokes, tell those whose fish become extinct, so they have to return to fishing techniques they haven't used in 20 years.

 

you want dead hobos littering your streets, because you shouldn't be the one paying for it. that's bellow the belt, human dignity, your own self-respect and all reason.

I didn't say they don't deserve better, but there are people who DO want to help themselves and better themselves and I would do a lot to help these people out.

 

Communism and autocracy are sort of by definition opposites. I've never called Norway communistic because I'll be honest I know close to nothing about Norway so now you've put words in my mouth. Does everyone deserve to be equal? SURE! Are they? Hell no. And there is simply no sense in trying to force it.

 

And what puts how does one start fishing? By learning how. What neighbor does? A neighbor that is well off and knows the man and trusts him, also family.

 

Not remembering who you fished for is WAY different than not remembering how to catch a fish. All those other people, what did I say, learn it again or learn something new.

 

Like I said before if I had the money I'd say to any one of those hobos, hey do you want to help yourself out? If you do come shovel my sidewalk, I'll pay you 10 dollars. Hell if I was feeling really generous I'd say shovel my walk and I'll let you sleep in a spare bed I've got. This is way different than just handing him the ten dollars.

 

Also what a_local_guy said.