The justification for government

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here's some support:

Nuclear weapons exist and we aren't all dead or enslaved. Prosperity is possible, even relatively common, in western democracies. Life spans are expanding rather than contracting, population growth is slowing, rapists get put in jail (usually), falsely convicted rapists have a better shot of getting OUT of jail than in the past, etc.

The things needed for human survival and human success are flourishing under government as it now operates, especially compared to any time in the past.

So, what is the justification for government, at least in the west? "It works."

[/ QUOTE ]

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Prosperity is due to the free market, not its antithesis. You haven't shown that any of the things you assert are good would be worse in the absence of government interventions. All you've done is assert, assert, assert and assume your conclusioon.

The things needed for human survival and human success are flourishing under capitalism, to the extent that it exists. They flourish, to the extent they can, despite government, not because of it.

Really. To give government the credit for prosperity? Name one thing government does competently. Other than deathcamps.

[/ QUOTE ]
How many people do you know that have been scalped by Indians? For that matter, how many do you know that have been burned for witchcraft? From my perspective, it seems to do a decent job protecting its citizens from both external and internal aggression.

As far as the market providing everything we need, what do you think would happen with/to nuclear weapons in an AC society?

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you think would happen to a fluffy stuffed animal puppy dog in AC?

[/ QUOTE ]
It would be used to kill or enslave huge numbers of people, turning the AC society into a thugocracy.

Actually no, I don't think that would happen with a fluffy stuffed animal puppy dog. It might happen with nukes though. And unfortunately, as long as you accept utilitarian success as a moral justification, "I don't know whether AC will work, but let's just do it" is morally equivalent to saying "I don't care whether AC is right or wrong."

[/ QUOTE ]

Not that you can show your calcuations as accurate, or get others to agree for that matter, but I am a rule utilitarian so no the ends does not automatically justify the means in my view.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've read quite a few posts from AC's asking for the ethical justification of democratic government and mixed market economics. (The idea being, government taxes people and jails those who don't pay. Ergo government uses force to get its way.)

Here's the justification: it works.

Here's some information on utility as the measure of ethical justification: utilitarian ethics.

Best regards,
Jogger

[/ QUOTE ]

I"m a utilitarian and think that government is, um... bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

"government"? or "this government"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Both.

[/ QUOTE ]
As a utilitarian, why do you think all government is bad?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am a rule utilitarian. I am against the initiation of violence.

[/ QUOTE ]
Should have anticipated that. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

What makes you suppose your position (given that it opposes government inherently) will bring about the greatest general happiness? (Knowing, as you must, that some others don't share your view and will certainly initiate violence in hope of increasing their own happiness regardless of the impact on others, I mean.)

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've read quite a few posts from AC's asking for the ethical justification of democratic government and mixed market economics. (The idea being, government taxes people and jails those who don't pay. Ergo government uses force to get its way.)

Here's the justification: it works.

Here's some information on utility as the measure of ethical justification: utilitarian ethics.

Best regards,
Jogger

[/ QUOTE ]

I"m a utilitarian and think that government is, um... bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

"government"? or "this government"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Both.

[/ QUOTE ]
As a utilitarian, why do you think all government is bad?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am a rule utilitarian. I am against the initiation of violence.

[/ QUOTE ]
Should have anticipated that. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

What makes you suppose your position (given that it opposes government inherently) will bring about the greatest general happiness? (Knowing, as you must, that some others don't share your view and will certainly initiate violence in hope of increasing their own happiness regardless of the impact on others, I mean.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, to start with, I am not arrogant enough to think that I can oversee the lives of everyone in the world to produce maximum happiness.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The things needed for human survival and human success are flourishing under government as it now operates, especially compared to any time in the past.

[/ QUOTE ]

The things needed for human survival are primarily provided by the private sector, not the govt, and would likely be provided with as equal or more capacity without govt.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with the first half of your sentence. Would you mind explaining the reasoning that leads you to conclude that the second half is also true?

[/ QUOTE ]

On the whole, I believe that without govt interference, there'd be more goods on the market and at cheaper prices. That's all.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here's some support:

Nuclear weapons exist and we aren't all dead or enslaved. Prosperity is possible, even relatively common, in western democracies. Life spans are expanding rather than contracting, population growth is slowing, rapists get put in jail (usually), falsely convicted rapists have a better shot of getting OUT of jail than in the past, etc.

The things needed for human survival and human success are flourishing under government as it now operates, especially compared to any time in the past.

So, what is the justification for government, at least in the west? "It works."

[/ QUOTE ]

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Prosperity is due to the free market, not its antithesis. You haven't shown that any of the things you assert are good would be worse in the absence of government interventions. All you've done is assert, assert, assert and assume your conclusioon.

The things needed for human survival and human success are flourishing under capitalism, to the extent that it exists. They flourish, to the extent they can, despite government, not because of it.

Really. To give government the credit for prosperity? Name one thing government does competently. Other than deathcamps.

[/ QUOTE ]
How many people do you know that have been scalped by Indians? For that matter, how many do you know that have been burned for witchcraft? From my perspective, it seems to do a decent job protecting its citizens from both external and internal aggression.

As far as the market providing everything we need, what do you think would happen with/to nuclear weapons in an AC society?

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you think would happen to a fluffy stuffed animal puppy dog in AC?

[/ QUOTE ]
It would be used to kill or enslave huge numbers of people, turning the AC society into a thugocracy.

Actually no, I don't think that would happen with a fluffy stuffed animal puppy dog. It might happen with nukes though. And unfortunately, as long as you accept utilitarian success as a moral justification, "I don't know whether AC will work, but let's just do it" is morally equivalent to saying "I don't care whether AC is right or wrong."

[/ QUOTE ]

Not that you can show your calcuations as accurate, or get others to agree for that matter, but I am a rule utilitarian so no the ends does not automatically justify the means in my view.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not on a case for case basis as an Act Utilitarian might look at it. R.U.'s operate on general principles which will on average lead to good outcomes, even if in a specific case the outcome is predictably bad. But given the level of badness nukes can inflict, I would think they might, all by themselves, demonstrate the value of pre-emptive (IE governmental) violence. Any chance you might reconsider your position?

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've read quite a few posts from AC's asking for the ethical justification of democratic government and mixed market economics. (The idea being, government taxes people and jails those who don't pay. Ergo government uses force to get its way.)

Here's the justification: it works.

Here's some information on utility as the measure of ethical justification: utilitarian ethics.

Best regards,
Jogger

[/ QUOTE ]

I"m a utilitarian and think that government is, um... bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

"government"? or "this government"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Both.

[/ QUOTE ]
As a utilitarian, why do you think all government is bad?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am a rule utilitarian. I am against the initiation of violence.

[/ QUOTE ]
Should have anticipated that. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

What makes you suppose your position (given that it opposes government inherently) will bring about the greatest general happiness? (Knowing, as you must, that some others don't share your view and will certainly initiate violence in hope of increasing their own happiness regardless of the impact on others, I mean.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, to start with, I am not arrogant enough to think that I can oversee the lives of everyone in the world to produce maximum happiness.

[/ QUOTE ]
Producing maximum happiness is precisely the point of utilitarianism, rule or otherwise. If you don't think you have any way to even ascertain what might do this, how can you possibly claim to be a utilitarian??

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
But given the level of badness nukes can inflict, I would think they might, all by themselves, demonstrate the value of pre-emptive (IE governmental) violence. Any chance you might reconsider your position?

[/ QUOTE ]

You do realize that nuclear weapons would likely not exist if not for extraordinary measures taken by govts to develop, distribute, and sustain them, right? It seems disingenuous to me to prove that govts are necessary merely to bottle up the problems they themselves created.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The things needed for human survival and human success are flourishing under government as it now operates, especially compared to any time in the past.

[/ QUOTE ]

The things needed for human survival are primarily provided by the private sector, not the govt, and would likely be provided with as equal or more capacity without govt.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with the first half of your sentence. Would you mind explaining the reasoning that leads you to conclude that the second half is also true?

[/ QUOTE ]

On the whole, I believe that without govt interference, there'd be more goods on the market and at cheaper prices. That's all.

[/ QUOTE ]
Meaning under no set of circumstances do you think it might be possible to have intervention be on average helpful? As with Cody's insulin example, for instance, if you ran across this in the "Reactions" thread?

[bkholdem]

It is highly unlikely that I will change my postion to pro government. I am 40yrs old and have been a republican and a libertarian, and now ac. I do not think I revert.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But given the level of badness nukes can inflict, I would think they might, all by themselves, demonstrate the value of pre-emptive (IE governmental) violence. Any chance you might reconsider your position?

[/ QUOTE ]

You do realize that nuclear weapons would likely not exist if not for extraordinary measures taken by govts to develop, distribute, and sustain them, right? It seems disingenuous to me to prove that govts are necessary merely to bottle up the problems they themselves created.

[/ QUOTE ]
I believe government merely sped up the inevitable, as far as development of nuclear weapons goes.

Nukes might have been hard to develop privately, but I think eventually the technology would develop in a free market, if only because nuclear power would develop as an energy competitor to natural gas, oil and coal and the combat applications would show up as an offshoot. (Ditto fuel-air bombs for gas companies, for that matter.)

Also, you can substitute biological weapons - particularly extra-nasty sh*t like smallpox, which I think would almost certainly be developed with or without government backing.