Dead Beat Dad's-Government Inefficiency, or, why welfare isn't so bad

[valenzuela]

Why isnt a global goverment required to keep the global market funcitioning? Why hasnt the global market collapsed into theft and violence.

Do you want a global monopoly on the use of force? I dont, that is kinda scary for me.

If I dont want what the goverment its providing why do I have to pay for it?

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is only true because what most nonvoters want isn't offered, hence their nonvoting.

[/ QUOTE ] Actually, it is. And they don't take it. Their are dozens of political parties, and you can write in whoever you want.

[/ QUOTE ]

And none of that matters in our two party system.

[ QUOTE ]
However, I do strongly favor proportional representation; the libertarian or classical liberal party would probably be the third or fourth biggest party in the U.S if we had it (probably with over 10% of the seats). If I could change one thing about the U.S. political system it would be this.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are a number of things I would change, but this is right at the top. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[Propertarian]

[ QUOTE ]
Why hasnt the global market collapsed into theft and violence.

[/ QUOTE ] It does, all the time. It is in many places AT THIS VERY SECOND. Remember the world wars? Do you know how many people wars have killed since then? Quite a few; literally thousands of times as many as states kill within their own territory.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you want a global monopoly on the use of force? I dont, that is kinda scary for me

[/ QUOTE ] I don't think this will be necessary; however. Democracies very, very rarely fight each other. Hence, their is an alternative solution...argued for over 200 years ago by Kant in "Perpetual Peace".

[valenzuela]

I could make a case that those states would have never been engaged in such massive destruction if they hadnt coerced tax payers to fund the wars. But I will ignore that argument for now.
Anyway would we have more or less violence if we have all the weapons to one country, even if we chose that country?
I think we are better off on what we have now. Anyway, Im a bit ignorant on global current issues but what conflicts are we having right now around the globe.
The two conflicts I can think of( iraq, israel-palestine) one of them wouldnt have happened if Iraq wouldnt have had a brutal dictator and the other one has strong religious , and Ive said before that AC cant solve religious conflicts.

edited to remove the argument I said I was going to ignore by now.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
Democracies very, very rarely fight each other

[/ QUOTE ]

Communist countries rarely fight each other. Of course over the last 100 years any country that went to communism got large amounts of support from other communist countries, otherwise they wouldnn't have made it (probably). On the other hand the large democracies like the US and GB have actively suppressed democracies in areas where they didn't want it or democracies where they disagreed with their politics. See US v Iran, GB v India, US v -insert latin/south american country here-, GB v -insert african country here-. Or the French and their involvement in Vietnam. The big democracies have been attempting to control where when and how other democracies crop up, making it more likely than not that when they did arise they agreed with the most important policies of the big dogs to enough of an extent to avoid war, i don't think that the last 200 years of history say anything about the inherent lack of fighting between democracies.

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
I got a new plan. How about the women in question...
1) Not be [censored] by someone who will likely end up a dead beat dad.
2) Use suffient protection
3) Get an abortion
4) put the kid up for adoption
5) Rely on friends and family
6) Rely on charity.

[/ QUOTE ]Sounds like a plan. Let's see...
You're saying women should

1) have sex only with people she can rely on to be good husbands and fathers looking ahead at least the next fifteen years
2) always have sex with a hundred percent protection
3) not want to mother a child if marriage is not a lock
4) give up on every child whose father doesn't care about it
5) demand from friends and family to do more about a child than the child's father
6) become a beggar.

Sounds less like a plan the more I think about it.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not assuming away anything. I'm saying it's wrong to force someone else's subjective values on another.

[/ QUOTE ] That's what all rules are if values are subjective (although I believe in objective values): in AC, in the workplace, in a household, etc. SO you are saying all rules are wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Just the ones that are not explicitly agreed to by the parties bound by them.

In other words, if you can't agree upon rules to guide your interactions with another party, then DON'T INTERACT WITH THAT PARTY. It's very, very simple.

[ QUOTE ]
That's the whole point of rules. It's not "tyranny". It's called "getting things done" and "being organized when cooperating" and "solving conflicts without individuals resorting to force".

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, it's called "using force to get my way" (by *imposing* interaction (and the rules underwhich that interaction will occur) upon others whom *I* want to interact with (even if they don't want to interact with me)).

My neighbor has a picasso, and I want to see it, but he won't invite me over. I bust his door down and take it away from him; this is called "getting things done" and "being organized" (I had to arrange for a group of thugs to back me up).

You like to say "without individuals resorting to force" but what's actually happening is that the force is distributed among a large number of anonymous government agents, and is held in reserve. It is not explicitly used but everyone knows that if they don't play along the guns will come out.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, putting one in a situation in which they cannot force their subjective values on another is forcing ones subjective values on another. Like all relativist viewpoints, this claim is self-defeating, because if values are subjective, it is just your subjective vialuation that Joe Blow shouldn' force his views on other people, and it is not actually really wrong for him to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. This argument begs the question (almost explicitly - "it is not actually wrong for him to [impose upon others]"???? Are you serious?

[ QUOTE ]
So, if you don't want to force your values on other people, don't do it. But don't force me not to do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, you're begging the question by assuming your desire to impose is legitimate by default. You trump all others? No.

I want to box Joe Paterno, but he doesn't agree to my terms. Too bad, I'll punch him anyway. Legitimate, right? He can't force me to not interact with him, right?

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
But here's the thing that is government inefficiency, and why welfare isn't so bad. The cost of going after these dead beat dads was 10 times the amount that the dads owed. So, rather than just giving the money to needy families, the prosecutors, investigators, judges and administrators get 10 times that instead.

Want to save money...just give it to the poor.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason you endure the expense of going after a few dead beat dads is to disincent the majority of paying dads from deciding to shift thier parental obligation to the state.

This happened in California. A good freind of mine had cusdoty of his child. His X applied and got welfare for herself and that child. One day the state just ups and garnishes his wages for being a deadbeat dad when the mom was committing welfare fraud. Although my freind was not a deadbeat dad, it seemed a realitively simple process for the state to recover the money if he was one.

Stu

[valenzuela]

Im surprised my stance about allowing a baby market hasnt received any replies. I posted a link because I was just going to say his exact argument.

[moorobot]

Do you intentionally respond to me all the time because I have you on ignore?