The justification for government

[jogger08152]

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

[jogger08152]

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."

[Borodog]

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is like saying bleeding people works to cure diseases because it rarely kills people. Even if government "works", the free market works better.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain how a violent monopolist that outlaws and crushes its would-be competition and institutionalizes political "solutions" to societal problems without any sort of market testing can ever hope to produce better solutions than a competitive market.

[Borodog]

[ 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.

[John Kilduff]

[ 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 ]

I don't see why all of those things should be attributed to the existence of government. Perhaps most of them might have happened anyway?

[bkholdem]

[ 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.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm still waiting for someone to explain how a violent monopolist that outlaws and crushes its would-be competition and institutionalizes political "solutions" to societal problems without any sort of market testing can ever hope to produce better solutions than a competitive market.

[/ QUOTE ]

It depends on the roles of said organization. If one role is for instance to prevent individuals from destroying the environment, I think a violent monopolist can do this much more effectively than a comptetitive market driven by profits.

[Kaj]

[ 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.

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
Even if government "works", the free market works better.


[/ QUOTE ]

This has nothing to do with AC or state specifically, but in general, if you're going to say that the government must be removed 100% in order for the free market to do it's thing, don't you have to prove that the free market is 100% perfect. If it's only 95% perfect, then wouldn't we need x% government to get the market working at peak effiecentcy.

Or are you saying that nothing will work 100% and the free market, with no influece of government (however you choose to define it) is the closest to 100%.

Cody

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm still waiting for someone to explain how a violent monopolist that outlaws and crushes its would-be competition and institutionalizes political "solutions" to societal problems without any sort of market testing can ever hope to produce better solutions than a competitive market.

[/ QUOTE ]

It depends on the roles of said organization. If one role is for instance to prevent individuals from destroying the environment, I think a violent monopolist can do this much more effectively than a comptetitive market driven by profits.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah I made this point in the other mega-thread, there are a few things.

Cody