Size and Role of Government

[boldbidder]

I'm interested in having a more focused discussion on what people believe to be the appropriate size and role of government. We have a few other threads going that touch upon this theme periodically but I'd like to coalesce those discussions here.

I've seen several mention that the size of the federal government should be severely limited and that more power should be given to the states. Is this a reasonable course of action? If you agree, are states government somehow intrinsically more efficient that than the federal government?

Also, there seems to be a recurring theme that the federal government by and large can't do anything right. So is the system fundamentally flawed or are the people just consistently incompetent? I guess I just refuse to believe that no matter how pitiful you start out at something with proper due diligence you can improve and become relatively skillful. Why does the same not apply to government?

[reb]

you are embarking on a foray into government philosophy-a long and historical study.

i cannot answer all your questions, or perhaps any of them. my outlook has been skewed by almost 30 years as a federal employee. perhaps i had the ideas i now have in nascent form prior to my employment. what i have observed has caused me to be 'outside the norm'-the public has no idea what goes on in the bureaucracy unless they have served. to me, 5 years in the civilian service should be required of all citizens, so that they see some of what i saw. some will not agree with my views even then.

in any case, my view is that 'people and their egos' mess up 'governance'. reading about old kings and queens shows how 'one ego and it's support' messed up historical governance. the advent of democracy in the modern world was a temporary block, due to the particular personalities of george washington, thomas jefferson and others. the pendulum has swung back.

my position is that i need 'my government' (what a laugh) to provide for the general defense, support of roads, bridges and other public works (water, septic) and little else. certainly, i do not need them to muck with 'money' or exchange. i am willing to live by my wits or die by them-am i truly half witted, i will get half life. governments are intrusive by their nature, and i resent intrusion. there must be a breeding program designed to bring about a flock goverrnment can fleece, as they are shearing at an expanding rate. haggis will be in large supply.

[Storm]

I've seen several mention that the size of the federal government should be severely limited and that more power should be given to the states. Is this a reasonable course of action? If you agree, are states government somehow intrinsically more efficient that than the federal government?

(note: I'm just listing common arguments, not advocating or opposing stronger state governance, since that would really depend on what praticular issue we're talking about)

The advantage of a stronger state governments is that it can tailor the laws to the particular needs of the state. Take land laws. California has a lot of environmentally sensitive land, and a lot of people. Thus, they have fairly strict state wide land laws to protect it. Texas has a lot of excess land, so once you're outside city limits, people are given a lot of autonomy over their own land.

The other advantage is that states can "experiment" with laws. Suppose a problem arrives (like how to regulate wind farms, I have no idea who really regulates this, just throwing an example out there). Each state can pass different laws on how to regulate it, some laws will work better than others. The other states can then repeal their original laws and pass the better laws. If the national government passes a law, we don't the advantage of being able to compare other approaches.

[Maybe to Dream]

Yes I think the power should be given more to the states. I don't think that state government is neccesarily more efficient but when dealing with a country the size of the US there is only so much the fed can do right in terms of the majority, and through proper/better utilization of the local governments you can save yourself a lot of time while annoying less citizens. The states are more in touch I would say with their constituents and since the general political temperature of say, the Bible Belt will look different from that of New York, sometimes the best way to make things easier is to let the states make more of the decisions in terms of things like marriage definition, abortion, healthcare, etc. The problem with federal government trying to do too much in terms of legislation is that at some point it stops being tailored to the constituents and you have to adopt a more "one size fits all" approach which in my opinion can do a fair bit more damage than allowing the state to guage its own temperature and act accordingly.

The reason for the recurring theme that the federal government can't get anything done right is because frankly, they can't get anything done right. Whether its budgeting, scandals, justice, or simply being civilized when dealing with opposing factions, what I've seen is alot of irresponsibility and very little accountability. At this point they either can't or won't. (jury is out on Obama)
I would say that the part of the system that could very well play a part is that the terms are short(house, senate). I don't think people in power neccesarily have a reason to think about the long-term consequences of their actions if they're not inclined to do so. After all, running for office isn't always about ideas right now because by and large people have become exceedingly poor judges of character. In Canada they allow life senate seats I think it was, and I actually don't think that's a good idea either because that can lead to complacency. Really what I think is that moderation is the key to a successful government. Whether you go left or right on the political spectrum, at some point the lifestyle becomes similar when you've gone far enough.

You're an optimistic individual sir. And theoretically it should work out that way but the same people aren't always the ones learning and growing. Politics is a bit of a revolving door and why should they work to do better when they don't have to? People are impatient, short-term solutions often look better than planning for the long-term and therefore the masses will let you back in. Far too often it's a matter of the next election and not what's best for the country. Which is a sad commentary actually if the officials are a reflection of the people who vote them into power, although to be fair there is likely a good number of decent and hardworking folks in government, I think my point though is that often corruption can sometimes work its way into the best of us and in something as large as government, it would not be unsurprising to discover a fair amount of that going on. That's my opinion anyway.

...and the people are consistently imcompetent.

[maxpot46]

I've seen several mention that the size of the federal government should be severely limited and that more power should be given to the states. Is this a reasonable course of action? If you agree, are states government somehow intrinsically more efficient that than the federal government?State governments are supposed to engage in some sort of "competition" with each other for citizens, theoretically resulting in more efficiency. More powerful states would also, theoretically, check and be checked by the federal government, each fearful of the other gaining too much power. And, again theoretically, the more local the government, the more able it is to respond to the needs of a community.

I don't think it works out as hoped for. Since governments are funded by coercion instead of persuasion, they don't actually have to please citizens and thus have no real incentive to compete by improving services -- improvements are expensive and since they don't contribute to increased profits (as business investments do) they are just an increased drain on the treasury. Eventually, they stop checking each other (which as noted can be expensive) and just come to an agreement on how to divvy up the loot/power.Also, there seems to be a recurring theme that the federal government by and large can't do anything right. So is the system fundamentally flawed or are the people just consistently incompetent? I guess I just refuse to believe that no matter how pitiful you start out at something with proper due diligence you can improve and become relatively skillful. Why does the same not apply to government?"With proper due diligence" implies an incentive to "improve and become relatively skillful". This is lacking in government, as they spend coercively-acquired money and do not have to please consumers as businesses do. With no competition, no threat of going out of business, and no need to please customers to ensure revenues, there is absolutely no need to turn out a superior product. In fact, in government, incentives are reversed -- success means less funding, failure means more funding.

[boldbidder]

State governments are supposed to engage in some sort of "competition" with each other for citizens, theoretically resulting in more efficiency. More powerful states would also, theoretically, check and be checked by the federal government, each fearful of the other gaining too much power. And, again theoretically, the more local the government, the more able it is to respond to the needs of a community.

OK, I'll buy that. So under the state centric model what happens when one state just sucks real bad and becomes insolvent? If enough businesses and citizens leave can that state be disbanded or divvied up amongst some other adjacent successful states? That probably sounds wacko, but I'm trying to figure out how to inject a bit of a 'survival of the fittest' slant to things so that we ensure that cream rises to the top in terms of propagating successful state level ideas and eliminating the states that can't get their acts together altogether. In the case of sustained poor performance as measured by citizen/business exodus they would just get absorbed by their more efficiently run neighbors.


"With proper due diligence" implies an incentive to "improve and become relatively skillful". This is lacking in government, as they spend coercively-acquired money and do not have to please consumers as businesses do. With no competition, no threat of going out of business, and no need to please customers to ensure revenues, there is absolutely no need to turn out a superior product. In fact, in government, incentives are reversed -- success means less funding, failure means more funding.

I thought you just established that the incentive is that citizens and/or business will emigrate from said poorly run states? In order to make the state/local government model work then we absolutely have to have a system of penalization in the form eventual citizen/business exodus.

So with that said why doesn't this model as you've described become the emergent behavior in America? Is the populace to apathetic?

[Lycurgus]

State governments should be almost entirely sovereign, in the sense that State is an independent Government, or Nation. The United States is a Union of independent entities, which is entered into freely (and, imo, should be withdrawn from freely, but that's another discussion entirely) and allows for mutual defense, laws vital to Union Safety, and that's it.

If you look back at history, the Commerce Clause has been expanded exponentially beyond its original intent. When the Federal Government wanted to ban Alcohol, it took an Amendment to the United States Constitution.

When they want to ban drugs, they reschedule them.

The Federal Government has become far too large, imo.

[INTJRyan]

Also, there seems to be a recurring theme that the federal government by and large can't do anything right.

I always find it amusing that people go on the internet, the largest repository of knowledge ever assembled by humans and a system that would not have been possible without government intervention, and complain that the government can't do anything right.

[boldbidder]

I always find it amusing that people go on the internet, the largest repository of knowledge ever assembled by humans and a system that would not have been possible without government intervention, and complain that the government can't do anything right.

Wasn't my personal belief, I was echoing sentiments that other folks here have expressed. Personally I think that government does a few things quite well, specifically when it comes to funding scientific/technical research. Often times the sort of research government funds the private sector wouldn't touch with Bernie Madoff's money because the time horizon on return is indeterminate.

[Lycurgus]

I always find it amusing that people go on the internet, the largest repository of knowledge ever assembled by humans and a system that would not have been possible without government intervention, and complain that the government can't do anything right.How would the internet not have been possible without the intervention of the United States, Federal Government, exactly?

[boldbidder]

How would the internet not have been possible without the intervention of the United States, Federal Government, exactly?

The internet might not be the best example, the biggest thing the gubment did to spur the growth of internet usage in the US was telecom deregulation. The actual technological innovation belongs to the Swiss.

[INTJRyan]

Wasn't my personal belief, I was echoing sentiments that other folks here have expressed. Personally I think that government does a few things quite well, specifically when it comes to funding scientific/technical research. Often times the sort of research government funds the private sector wouldn't touch with Bernie Madoff's money because the time horizon on return is indeterminate.

I know it wasn't your personal view. And I agree with your assertion here. :)

How would the internet not have been possible without the intervention of the United States, Federal Government, exactly?

I'm not your research monkey and I suspect you know full well about the history of the internet so quit the bullshit and just state your opinion.





INTJRyan added to this post, 14 minutes and 37 seconds later...

The internet might not be the best example, the biggest thing the gubment did to spur the growth of internet usage in the US was telecom deregulation. The actual technological innovation belongs to the Swiss.

The Swiss? DARPA and ARPA surrender?

[Lycurgus]

I'm not your research monkey and I suspect you know full well about the history of the internet so quit the bullshit and just state your opinion.No, it's a genuine question.

You state; I always find it amusing that people go on the internet, the largest repository of knowledge ever assembled by humans and a system that would not have been possible without government intervention, and complain that the government can't do anything right.

My question being, how would the internet not have been possible without government intervention. You made the claim, I'm just curious as to what your reasoning behind it is.

No bullshit, I'm genuinely curious. I happen to disagree, but if you have any basis in reality for your opinion I don't have any problem whatsoever changing my mind.

[boldbidder]

I know it wasn't your personal view. And I agree with your assertion here. :)



I'm not your research monkey and I suspect you know full well about the history of the internet so quit the bullshit and just state your opinion.





INTJRyan added to this post, 14 minutes and 37 seconds later...



The Swiss? DARPA and ARPA surrender?

Well for my dollar the first bonafide internet took place when the folks at CERN networked a few boxes via TCP/IP, everything that happened elsewhere after that was just building on that previous innovation. Also, the physicists at CERN were the first to actually use HTML practically. In my book these two things, regardless of how rudimentary, make up the initial stages of what we know as the internet today.

[acyckowski]

I'm not your research monkey and I suspect you know full well about the history of the internet so quit the bullshit and just state your opinion.

*throws a handful of shells from the peanut gallery*

It's your argument, it's your responsibility to back it up.

I've seen several mention that the size of the federal government should be severely limited and that more power should be given to the states. Is this a reasonable course of action? If you agree, are states government somehow intrinsically more efficient that than the federal government?

That was the intent of the framers of the Constitution. Notably, it was their second attempt at defining the powers of the federal government. The Articles of Confederation were too State-centric, but they seemed to have gotten the hang of it on the second try.

States are not more efficient, but they are more accountable to the electorate, just as counties are more accountable than the state, etc. The closer to the people the government is, the more responsive and responsible to the voters it gets.

At least, that's the theory. In practice, we've been federalists ever since the 1860's. (see below)

The United States is a Union of independent entities, which is entered into freely (and, imo, should be withdrawn from freely, but that's another discussion entirely) and allows for mutual defense, laws vital to Union Safety, and that's it.

And yet, this is the same discussion. Lincoln's actions to "preserve the Union" in the 1860's had the unintended consequence of subordinating the States ever since. Although he kept the United States intact as a political body, he also killed it philosophically. That's not to say he did the wrong thing, because we don't know how disastrous an enduring CSA might have been. However, Lincoln's bold assertion of federal supremacy permanently killed the sovereignty of the individual States. The States are no longer truly autonomous, they are allowed to act with some discretion within the limits established by the federal government.

[Pandemonium]

I advocate HUGE GOVERNMENT. I would go on another rant but I think I have ranted out on this subject.

[thod]

The internet is a bad example. I was alive prior to the internet, got my first home connection to it in 1990, working as a unix developer. There were numerous networking technologies competing, one of them was bound to emerge as the standard. Its like looking at battles over the formats of DVD's. They would have happened whichever format won. We would have had an internet even without DARPA, just not a TCP/IP one.

[Tragic Hero]

Wasn't my personal belief, I was echoing sentiments that other folks here have expressed. Personally I think that government does a few things quite well, specifically when it comes to funding scientific/technical research. Often times the sort of research government funds the private sector wouldn't touch with Bernie Madoff's money because the time horizon on return is indeterminate.

I also agree that the government does some things quite well. But it is purely a case of people discussing what they don't like as opposed to what they do.
Example- Let's pretend that exactly 50% of your country approve of affirmative action and exactly 50% disapprove, I contend that you will hear a lot more complaints than compliments on the internet. There are a plethora of ways to denigrate government decisions i.e "It's racist against whites" , "It should be by poor area codes" , "It's outdated" , "The University system should be changed" as opposed to "I agree with it".

[INTJRyan]

No, it's a genuine question.

You state; I always find it amusing that people go on the internet, the largest repository of knowledge ever assembled by humans and a system that would not have been possible without government intervention, and complain that the government can't do anything right.

My question being, how would the internet not have been possible without government intervention. You made the claim, I'm just curious as to what your reasoning behind it is.

No bullshit, I'm genuinely curious. I happen to disagree, but if you have any basis in reality for your opinion I don't have any problem whatsoever changing my mind.

1. The gov had the need for the internet: the ability for the military to communicate after a nuke strike. Private citizens do not have that need. In order to solve this need, the initial funding was provided to researchers.

2. Infrastructure and logistics: ever see a computer from the 60's? Private citizens really did not have access to that type of technology. Maybe large corporations would have got there eventually but who knows?

3. Standards: as others have said in this thread, yeah, maybe we would have had an internet, but the gov was instrumental in setting and picking standards so that each developer did not end up with a computer that could only talk to itself, so that mythical internet would look a lot different. So without all of the above, we would not have the system we have today.

OK so forget the internet. How about rural electrification?





INTJRyan added to this post, 2 minutes and 32 seconds later...

*throws a handful of shells from the peanut gallery*

It's your argument, it's your responsibility to back it up.


I have no problem backing it up, I'm just not into this INTJ passive aggressive game where I'm asked to state something that is obvious by someone who already knows what I am going to say and who can then can write some humiliating, pre-thought out response. Just state your opinion.

[acyckowski]

I have no problem backing it up, I'm just not into this INTJ passive aggressive game where I'm asked to state something that is obvious by someone who already knows what I am going to say and who can then can write some humiliating, pre-thought out response. Just state your opinion.

It wasn't an "INTJ passive aggressive game," it was a challenge to substantiate your opinion. Perhaps your knowledge is vast, your logic is flawless, and your opinion aligns completely with an omniscient Deity, but it's certainly not self-evident.

Telling somebody who disagrees with you that they need to research your opinion is bad form, at the least.

Here's an opinion for you: a person who states a value judgment as indisputable fact, then refuses to justify it on grounds of an irrelevant bias, probably doesn't really know what they're talking about.

But hey, that's my opinion, if you don't like it you can prove yourself wrong.

;D

How about rural electrification?

I think this is an example that government does things BIG, but that doesn't mean they do things well. A private citizen probably couldn't have built the Hoover Dam, either. As long as we needed to run power lines to farmers, I'm cool with it, but don't try to convince me that it was done because it was a great investment opportunity.

These things are done by the government not because nobody else can do it better, but because nobody else can do it period.

Government's strength is the ability to accomplish major projects reasonably well. It does so, however, with a cost efficiency that makes you cringe. Only the government has the resources to do something like "provide for the common defense," but I'll be the first to tell you we piss away all kinds of time, money, and manpower trying to appease elected officials, citizens, and our own internal bureaucratic processes. The job gets done, but hoo boy it can get ugly.

[INTJRyan]

It wasn't an "INTJ passive aggressive game," it was a challenge to substantiate your opinion. Perhaps your knowledge is vast, your logic is flawless, and your opinion aligns completely with an omniscient Deity, but it's certainly not self-evident.

Telling somebody who disagrees with you that they need to research your opinion is bad form, at the least.

Here's an opinion for you: a person who states a value judgment as indisputable fact, then refuses to justify it on grounds of an irrelevant bias, probably doesn't really know what they're talking about.

But hey, that's my opinion, if you don't like it you can prove yourself wrong.

;D


Riiiiiight. You have absolutely no clue what I'm talking about.

I think this is an example that government does things BIG, but that doesn't mean they do things well. A private citizen probably couldn't have built the Hoover Dam, either. As long as we needed to run power lines to farmers, I'm cool with it, but don't try to convince me that it was done because it was a great investment opportunity.


Huh? It was done by the government precisely because it was NOT a great investment opportunity. Power companies didn't give a crap about folks in the sticks because the cost of setting up the infrastructure was too high. That's why government is the only player that can get things done at that scale.

These things are done by the government not because nobody else can do it better, but because nobody else can do it period.

Yup. Exactly my point. No one said anything about better or worse.

Government's strength is the ability to accomplish major projects reasonably well. It does so, however, with a cost efficiency that makes you cringe. Only the government has the resources to do something like "provide for the common defense," but I'll be the first to tell you we piss away all kinds of time, money, and manpower trying to appease elected officials, citizens, and our own internal bureaucratic processes. The job gets done, but hoo boy it can get ugly.

I don't think anybody in this thread has ever stated that government is efficient. While maybe not efficient initially, the ROI on things like Hoover, Internet, Rural elec etc. has been extraordinary.

[Lycurgus]

Huh? It was done by the government precisely because it was NOT a great investment opportunity. Power companies didn't give a crap about folks in the sticks because the cost of setting up the infrastructure was too high. That's why government is the only player that can get things done at that scale. Perhaps if that government intervention wasn't done, and those lines weren't run, we'd have a more decentralized power system, with local, small wind farms, hydroelectric and photovoltaic generators.

With a very large portion of the population living outside of major cities, it wouldn't have been long before someone came up with something to fix the problem (and make a profit in the process, not footing tax payers with the bill).

Not to mention, even if the idea had a higher initial cost, which I doubt, our power grid wouldn't be as susceptible to terrorist / foreign attack.

At this moment, one of the biggest worries of the American Government (and, by proxy, people) is an attack on the Power Grid. A few coordinated attacks at key locations could knock out major cities and outlying areas and wreak havoc on the markets (not that they're not already in the tank), financial systems, hospitals (although they typically have limited run-time backup generators) and generally be a very bad thing.

I don't think anybody in this thread has ever stated that government is efficient. While maybe not efficient initially, the ROI on things like Hoover, Internet, Rural elec etc. has been extraordinary.Internet: Still unproven. You still haven't made your point. You state that it would've been difficult to make the internet in the 60's because computers were expensive. True, however the internet could've (and likely would've) arisen later, as personal computing gained popularity. You make the claim that it's a good thing the government chose for us which protocol was best. Perhaps if there was healthy competition it would be more efficient? Perhaps not, and the current one would've won out anyway.

Rural Electricity has its upsides, but also potential downsides.

Hoover, 'meh'. It's not that big of a deal. Sure, it's nifty. Sure, it makes a lot of power. But, frankly, c'mon, one big project, a point does not make.

What else you got, under "etc"?

[acyckowski]

Riiiiiight. You have absolutely no clue what I'm talking about.

Quite correct, as I have little interest in the history of how the internet was created. You've stated your opinion that the government made it possible, and it's an open thread, so please support your position. Pointing to the history of how the government was involved is not the same as demonstrating how it couldn't have happened without the government. Nobody's asking for a doctoral thesis, just a coherent argument to defend your belief that it could not have happened except for the way it did.

Initially, my remarks were intended as a gratuitious potshot before I got on to the OP's question, but your continued refusal to justify your opinion leads me to doubt you have much behind it. It's a shame, too, since you had piqued my curiosity.

Huh? It was done by the government precisely because it was NOT a great investment opportunity. Power companies didn't give a crap about folks in the sticks because the cost of setting up the infrastructure was too high. That's why government is the only player that can get things done at that scale.
...
I don't think anybody in this thread has ever stated that government is efficient. While maybe not efficient initially, the ROI on things like Hoover, Internet, Rural elec etc. has been extraordinary.

To boldbidder's opening inquiry, the question of efficiency and utility are important. The government CAN pave over the entire midwest if it wanted too, but to what end and at what cost? Sure, it would alleviate the shortage of parking spots in Topeka, but does the problem warrant the solution?

Your point about rural electrification is in the same vein. Do we actually need to run power out into the sticks? Farmers need electricity, to be sure, but was it necessary to solve the problem by running hard lines? Since the government wanted to get involved, why not just buy generators for them? I suspect, like many other government programs, elected officials decided on a solution and then found a problem for it.

The proper role and scope of federal government are explicitly stated in the Constitution. We've had over 2 centuries to add anything we've left out, but there is still no Constitutional basis for hundreds of billions of dollars worth of government spending. Where is federal health insurance mentioned? How about pig scent research? Universal pension plans?

It's the role of the States to fill in the blanks. If you want to drive business out of your state so you can use tax money to subsidize your rent controlled apartment in an urban wonderland, move to New York. If you want to be left alone to take care of your own business, move to flyover country.

[boldbidder]

Internet: Still unproven. You still haven't made your point. You state that it would've been difficult to make the internet in the 60's because computers were expensive. True, however the internet could've (and likely would've) arisen later, as personal computing gained popularity. You make the claim that it's a good thing the government chose for us which protocol was best. Perhaps if there was healthy competition it would be more efficient? Perhaps not, and the current one would've won out anyway.


I actually think this is a good example of gubment helping with R&D by choosing a protocol, in this case TCP/IP. The competition component you mention would've been extremely problematic for something like that internet where adherence to standards is paramount. A prime example of the standards being left to the private sector and abjectly getting it wrong can be seen in the US wireless industry. There's been consolidation recently and every major carrier has committed to LTE (sans Sprint, but they don't count), but previously we had CDMA, TDMA, & GSM. It was proverbially soup of foolishness, mostly spurned by every carrier wanting do things 'their' way instead of settling on the proper standard.

[Arminius]

Personally, I think the government's job is to organize national defense, maintain public order, and act as a representative of the nation in international discussions.

National defense is the primary purpose of the government, and the vast majority of tax money should go to preparing for war and espionage.

For maintaining public order, a coherent set of laws needs to be established, as do law courts. Police is more the business of local government, but the central government should have police for tracking the more mobile miscreants.

For acting as representative of nation, someone has to negotiate with foreign nations, establish treaties, and deal with international disputes.

I favour small efficient government. I think what we have now(in the USA at least), is hideously bloated, wasteful, and incompetent. It is trying to do everything for everyone. This is the path to socialist nanny state and failure. The government should try to do as little as possible, and do what little it does well.

[Lycurgus]

I actually think this is a good example of gubment helping with R&D by choosing a protocol, in this case TCP/IP. The competition component you mention would've been extremely problematic for something like that internet where adherence to standards is paramount. A prime example of the standards being left to the private sector and abjectly getting it wrong can be seen in the US wireless industry. There's been consolidation recently and every major carrier has committed to LTE (sans Sprint, but they don't count), but previously we had CDMA, TDMA, & GSM. It was proverbially soup of foolishness, mostly spurned by every carrier wanting do things 'their' way instead of settling on the proper standard.And yet, you could still make phone calls from a Sprint Phone to a Cingular one.

[boldbidder]

And yet, you could still make phone calls from a Sprint Phone to a Cingular one.

Yeah, but you can't take your Sprint phone and use it on any other network. ;)

[Lycurgus]

Yeah, but you can't take your Sprint phone and use it on any other network. ;)An unfortunate trade off, but more and more they're becoming standardized, with Sprint being the last hold out.

Cellular technology has really only been widely available for just over a decade, not even that for most people, I'd say that after 12 years a technology is still in its infancy, and that isn't enough time to allow it to fully bud or settle into a state of equilibrium.

Of course, that's not true of all technology.... The Government didn't take steps to standardize Videogame Formats, DVD formats, VHS/Betamax formats, etc. The market takes care of those all on its own.

[maxpot46]

OK, I'll buy that. So under the state centric model what happens when one state just sucks real bad and becomes insolvent? If enough businesses and citizens leave can that state be disbanded or divvied up amongst some other adjacent successful states? That probably sounds wacko, but I'm trying to figure out how to inject a bit of a 'survival of the fittest' slant to things so that we ensure that cream rises to the top in terms of propagating successful state level ideas and eliminating the states that can't get their acts together altogether. In the case of sustained poor performance as measured by citizen/business exodus they would just get absorbed by their more efficiently run neighbors.I think it would be more likely that, prior to self-destruction, states would look around and adopt similar practices to successful states. But that's a theoretical matter because, in practice, the states don't "compete", in part because they have found it more profitable to form a cartel of mediocrity, and in part because they have all been trained to believe that state monopolies are better than the market in some areas, so all come to the same conclusions regarding policy. In any case, state policy is marginal compared to federal policy, lessening the beneficial effects of migration.
I thought you just established that the incentive is that citizens and/or business will emigrate from said poorly run states? In order to make the state/local government model work then we absolutely have to have a system of penalization in the form eventual citizen/business exodus.In practice, they don't emigrate, in part because of transaction costs, in part because of sentimental attachment to family/friends/neighborhoods, and in part because of the similar mediocrity from state to state (for reasons outlined above).So with that said why doesn't this model as you've described become the emergent behavior in America? Is the populace to apathetic?Because the key to competition is persuasively acquired resources. When states coercively acquire them, they have more incentive to form a cartel than to compete with each other.

[eternaltriangle]

I start with a basic typology in economics.
It is possible to delineate "goods" by two metrics: are they excludable in use (eg. I cannot build a fence to block out the sun so it only shines on my property, so sunlight is non-excludable), and are they rival in consumption (eg. does my consumption of sunlight take away from your consumption). This produces four possible combinations:

1. Market goods (excludable, rival) eg. bread
2. Club goods (excludable, non-rival) eg. cable television signals
3. Common pool resources (non-excludable, rival) eg. fish in the sea
4. Pure public goods (non-excludable, non-rival) eg. national defence

Market goods can be adequately provided by the "invisible hand", provided the existence of the public good, order. Club goods can also be provided by the market, but can run into problems.

It is the other two goods that require the most government intervention. Common pool resources will be over-exploited without government intervention. This is Hardin's tragedy of the commons: imagine three cattle-herders sharing the same field. In order to make money, each has an incentive to grow their herd as much as possible, even knowing that eventually the field will become deteriorated. Enforceable rules (ie. government) is required to prevent the worst.

Finally, public goods will be under-provided by a market. Why? Because businesses cannot prevent additional people from the benefits of the good, and because businesses cannot profit from the unintended beneficiaries. Thus, the primary task of government should be to provide those goods, or otherwise subsidize activities that have a public good nature.

National defence, roads, and public order are the clearest examples of this.

Healthcare and education are sometimes instances of this. Preventing the spread of disease, keeping workers working and preventing the adverse selection problem in health insurance markets justify some measure of state involvement in heathcare.

The positive spillover effects of education not captured by the educated individuals themselves (eg. I am better off because I have a skilled doctor) are as well. Ensuring that basic scientific research takes place is of import as well (private firms are good at inventing marketable devices, but rarely engage in pure science on their own).

Some measure of welfare spending may also be of benefit to society as a function of law and order. A society with vast gaps between rich and poor is more likely to suffer from crime and perhaps revolution.

The problem with government is that it is not free. It requires appropriation from the private sector, and it means we are trading off more public goods for fewer market goods. Most libertarians, I suspect, are willing to accept that the need for public goods is higher than zero. However, they argue that this is not a problem, suggesting the following as solutions or justifications:

1. A government powerful enough to do good, also has the power to do bad
This is indeed true, but the question then is whether society's utility is greater with no public goods, or at some over-appropriated level. In other words, the libertarian reaction to a sub-optimal tendency of governments to over-appropriate from private citizens is to suggest an alternate sub-optimal point. Secondly, the functioning of free markets requires law and order, and thus, at least some government (and yes, the kind with guns).

2. The private sector can pick up the slack, through markets, altruistic volunteering and user fees. Big government crowds out volunteer efforts, and inefficiently delivers services - poorly serving its constituents because it has no real competition.

Markets only exist where there is some profit, and it is impossible to profit from public goods without essentially becoming a sort of government. Lets take national defence as an example. One might argue that a minarchist society could hire mercenaries to defend them. How would that society collect those funds? Wouldn't that society be completely beholden to its mercenaries, just as we are to governments?

The alternative argument involves altruism. The problem there is with free-riding. Even good-hearted people have a limited capacity for effort, and thus are misers when it comes to their time. Each individual has almost no effect on the ultimate outcome of some public project by themselves. Thus, each will be made better off by shirking their duties on public projects. To take national defence as an example again, I wouldn't risk my life and join a militia, knowing full well that others would anyway (unless the militia threatened me with certain death - in other words, taking on the role of the state).

Finally, there are user fees. Firstly, user fees mean that a society is going to have a big old bureaucracy, libertarians just pretend it isn't government because people pay for it voluntarily. The problem is that you can't exclude people from getting public goods. If you provide national defence for the United States, you can't not provide it for a given individual in the US.

I suppose I haven't been all that clear on where I stand beyond "somewhere between nothing and something", but I suspect further clarification would strain even the most attentive audiences.

[maxpot46]

It is the other two goods that require the most government intervention. Common pool resources will be over-exploited without government intervention. This is Hardin's tragedy of the commons: imagine three cattle-herders sharing the same field. In order to make money, each has an incentive to grow their herd as much as possible, even knowing that eventually the field will become deteriorated. Enforceable rules (ie. government) is required to prevent the worst.I don't agree with this view, as tragedy of the commons can only occur on "public" property. If all property were privately owned, there could be no such problem.Finally, public goods will be under-provided by a market. Why? Because businesses cannot prevent additional people from the benefits of the good, and because businesses cannot profit from the unintended beneficiaries. Thus, the primary task of government should be to provide those goods, or otherwise subsidize activities that have a public good nature.

National defence, roads, and public order are the clearest examples of this.

Healthcare and education are sometimes instances of this. Preventing the spread of disease, keeping workers working and preventing the adverse selection problem in health insurance markets justify some measure of state involvement in heathcare. Again I disagree. This is essentially the argument that anything that creates positive externalities must be government-regulated. Such a view is easily distorted to justify government intervention in almost anything, and is not consistent with non-coercion because it puts the ends before the means. In any case, it is false because the assumption "businesses cannot profit from the unintended beneficiaries", while true, does not lead to the unspoken assumption that businesses cannot profit at all. If property rights are consistently enforced, there are still ways to make money, despite the existence of positive externalities. For example, if there were no copyright laws, no one would have to pay to get a song, but artists would still make money from selling concert tickets. As another example, models brighten everyone's day when they smile yet still make a significant income selling their pictures and presence. National defense, roads, utilities and order can all be provided by private owners, at a profit, despite the existence of positive externalities.

Also, though I am usually loathe to argue from an empirical standpoint, I feel I should point out that government deciding to "subsidize activities that have a public good nature" often leads to disasters such as the current housing bubble. So not only is it IMO unjustified theoretically, but empirically it leads to a reduction in welfare.Markets only exist where there is some profit, and it is impossible to profit from public goods without essentially becoming a sort of government. Lets take national defence as an example. One might argue that a minarchist society could hire mercenaries to defend them. How would that society collect those funds? Wouldn't that society be completely beholden to its mercenaries, just as we are to governments? No, because the mercenaries would be paid by, and thus beholden to, their customers. Unlike the government, which coerces its funds.If you provide national defence for the United States, you can't not provide it for a given individual in the US.However, you can still be profitable, thus there will be providers in that sector.

[eternaltriangle]

1. Tragedy of the commons
If you were looking at the definition of a common pool resource, a key part of that definition is non-excludability. That means by the nature of the good, we can't stop people from harvesting it. Hardin's example is probably not the best because we can have private property when it comes to fields. Fish stocks are probably a better example - it is not feasible to have property rights with regard to the ocean. You need fishing quotas, or else there will be overfishing.

Moreover, even if you institute "property rights" how do you divide a good that was formerly held as part of the commons? Any outcome will be the result of government intervention, and somewhat arbitrary.

2. Positive externalities
Yes, some amount of public goods will be provided by private firms. The issue is that the private sector will under-provide them because unlike governments, they do not capture any benefit from spillover effects. For instance, the invention of ARPANET, helped lay the foundations for Google, although ARPANET itself was not profitable. However, if I were some private company in 1970, in a position to develop ARPANET I would evaluate the decision solely on the benefits provided to me by ARPANET, counting possible future benefits to Google as zero. This is clearly sub-optimal. That said, I agree that governments often make poor choices, which is why there is a tradeoff here by necessity. The problem with the housing bubble was that governments subsidized something that was politically popular, but not really in the public interest. Until you can prove to me that zero (or near-zero) is the optimal allocation of public goods, however, I will remain unconvinced of the libertarian argument. I think it is a more useful enterprise to deduce ways of constraining governments so that they generally make optimal choices (for instance, central bank independence removed political incentives from monetary policy, and has brought us two and a half decades of price stability).

3. Mercenaries
What is to stop the mercenaries from coercively appropriating wealth from citizens (as often happened in the age when mercenaries were commonplace)? At least in democracies citizens have a means of punishing governments that are too rapacious. Moreover, collusion would be easier to manage among a small group of mercenary organizations than among the many people and interests that make up political parties and governments.

4. National defence
My point is that nobody will pay for national defence individually (or few would), because they would prefer to freeride on others.

[Krazy P]

Bold - this is a good topic. For interesting reading, I would point you to Peter Drucker's "Post-Capitalist Society".

In it he points out that the long term trend is for government to use an increasingly large proportion of GDP.

Because of this, the need for all modern societies to confront the inherent inefficiencies of government is critical for the long term success - even survival - of civilization. (Imagine if government consumed 100% of GDP - yikes - but that is where the trend is headed).

It is in the very nature of governments to be inefficient. This is due to the need for governments to be bureaucratic as opposed to arbitrary.

A business can and should be arbitrary in its allocation of resources - seeking to maximize shareholder value. A government, by contrast, must be "just" and the best way to do that is with rules that, at least in theory, try to treat everyone the same. Of course, this means that governments are very inefficient.

So, it makes sense to keep government away from as many things as possible in order to increase productivity and the standard of living.

The problem is that it is also human nature for individuals and organizations to try to get as much power and control that they possibly can - and so government continues to expand whenever and however it can.

We see this trend and debate in many countries - in the U.S. right now, for example.

My guess is that for the next few years we will see a rapid acceleration in the proportion of GDP that the U.S. government consumes. With that will come increased inefficiencies.

(One small example will suffice... some of the "stimulus money" will be used for painting bridges. A rule that is part of the plan is that union workers must be used on all projects. That will drive the cost from $11/hour to $30 per hour and more. As the U.S. government continues to expand its reach, the inefficiencies will grow and grow.)

A challenge to be sure.

[maxpot46]

1. Tragedy of the commons
Hardin's example is probably not the best because we can have private property when it comes to fields. Fish stocks are probably a better example - it is not feasible to have property rights with regard to the ocean. You need fishing quotas, or else there will be overfishing. I don't agree that "it is not feasible to have property rights with regard to the ocean" -- I agree with Walter Block (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). Again I maintain that as long as property rights are clearly defined, there can be no tragedy of the commons.Moreover, even if you institute "property rights" how do you divide a good that was formerly held as part of the commons? Any outcome will be the result of government intervention, and somewhat arbitrary.You use the homesteading principle (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).2. Positive externalities
Yes, some amount of public goods will be provided by private firms. The issue is that the private sector will under-provide them because unlike governments, they do not capture any benefit from spillover effects. For instance, the invention of ARPANET, helped lay the foundations for Google, although ARPANET itself was not profitable. However, if I were some private company in 1970, in a position to develop ARPANET I would evaluate the decision solely on the benefits provided to me by ARPANET, counting possible future benefits to Google as zero. This is clearly sub-optimal. That said, I agree that governments often make poor choices, which is why there is a tradeoff here by necessity. I'm reading this as asserting that, despite government inefficiency, it sometimes results in positive outcomes that business cannot recognize. I think this is an example of the broken window fallacy (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). History might reveal some "good" outcomes of government regulation or control, but it can never reveal the alternative outcomes (i.e. what would have resulted without government interference), meaning that there can be no empirical comparisons between allocations of resources. We can only know how to best allocate resources by theory, which pretty clearly shows that monopolies (including government monopolies) are inefficient and produce inferior goods at inflated prices. Governments might sometime produce something useful but this does not validate their existence, even if you are arguing from the utilitarian perspective and not the ethical one.
Until you can prove to me that zero (or near-zero) is the optimal allocation of public goods, however, I will remain unconvinced of the libertarian argument. I find the Misesian calculation argument (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) and the Hayekian information argument (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) to be extremely convincing. The answer to this problem must be theoretical, as empirical evidence has the problem of "what is seen and not seen" (i.e. the broken window fallacy again). I think it is a more useful enterprise to deduce ways of constraining governments so that they generally make optimal choices (for instance, central bank independence removed political incentives from monetary policy, and has brought us two and a half decades of price stability). I don't think that approach is very useful at all, as the history of the Constitution clearly shows that paper cannot constrain the powers of governments, nor will they check each other if the powers are divided (over time they will collude to increase their collective powers).

And I confess that I don't know exactly when these 2.5 decades of price stability to which you refer were. Do you mean between 1944 and 1971? That seems to be the only feasible time period to which you could refer, yet we were on a "gold standard" back then and still suffered from inflation.
3. Mercenaries
What is to stop the mercenaries from coercively appropriating wealth from citizens (as often happened in the age when mercenaries were commonplace)? The competition of other mercenaries in an advanced market economy (the latter was lacking in the age of mercenaries).
4. National defence
My point is that nobody will pay for national defence individually (or few would), because they would prefer to freeride on others.I think a lot of folks would contribute to national defense, though perhaps not too many would contribute to national offense (the current use of our military and its governing "Department of Defense" -- funny how when we actually had to defend ourselves we had to create a new phrase for defense in "homeland security"). I also think this argument, if applied to the church or charities, would imply that there wouldn't be any (because who would tithe instead of free ride?) and is on that grounds obviously wrong (or at the very least quite weak).

[eternaltriangle]

1. The sea and fish
Block's essay admits that there are technical limitations that make it unfeasible to implement such a policy right now. I do agree that technological changes might make it possible for property rights in the air or water at some point. The typology I specified reflects that - if fish, air and water became excludable in a cost effective manner, they should be treated as private goods. Until then you have a problem (and will likely always have such a problem, since an advancing technological frontier creates new common pool resources, even as it solves problems surrounding old ones.

2. Positive externalities, empirical reasoning and monopolies
Oh you silly Austrians. We may not have an exact counterfactual, but there are always states with varying degrees of public investment (and earlier or later times in a state's history when the balance between private and public goods was different). We can use techniques like statistical regressions to gauge the relative effect of different policies. Theory without empirical confirmation is theology. How can you falsify something if you refuse to look at empirical results?

The other thing is that you are overly harsh on monopolies. Consider an industry that exhibits increasing returns to scale. Is it socially optimal to have five firms producing some given output separately, or to have one firm producing that same output? Clearly the monopoly will able to produce at a much lower point on a cost curve - and may even charge less than would the firms under perfect competition. There are a lot of industries (aerospace, for instance) that fit this general pattern. In particular are instances where there is a high fixed cost needed to enter the industry.

Moreover, under perfect competition profits are competed down to "normal profits", or some profit equal to the opportunity cost of the next best investment. In a static sense this is optimal, but what about over the long haul? Economic (above-normal) profits maintained by entry barriers (whether reaped by a government or private monopoly) are reinvested in R&D, dividends and plant expansion, all of which spur long-term growth.

I read one estimate that for Canada, moving to full employment, and eliminating all inefficiencies caused by imperfect competition would result in a one-time increase of GDP by 15%. You could also get that same result (with far fewer social dislocations) from 7 years of fairly unimpressive growth at 2%/annum.

3. The calculation argument
The calculation argument presumes that the government controls the means of production. I am not proposing such a state of affairs. Rather, I am proposing the operation of a free market with some government intervention. Market prices would be distorted by government intervention, but that is acceptable, if the ill effect of the distortion is outweighed by positive impact of the intervention.

4. Price stability and the Gold standard
I am talking about the early 80's till today. No, they didn't exhibit zero inflation, but inflation was consistently low, despite governments being able to enact countercyclical policies. The gold standard of the 40's, 50's and 60's was not really a gold standard, it was an adjustable peg. The classical gold standard restricted central bankers from preventing banking collapses in the 1930's, and paved the way for Black Friday to turn into the Great Depression (I'm of the Barry Eichengreen school on that question).

5. Freeriding and the military
Firstly, what would prevent mercenaries from colluding? They would have a strong incentive to do so, and the means to create barriers to entry into the mercenary market - both with force, or a credible commitment to undercut potential entrants.

Free-riding does not predict zero contributions to public goods like defence, but it does mean that it is unlikely individuals would contribute at the socially optimal level. You yourself denote a limitation in saying that people might contribute for defensive purposes but not offensive ones. That is problematic because an effective defence sometimes requires preemptive or preventive actions. Israel, for instance, attacked Egypt first in the 1967 war because Mossad had fairly incontrovertible evidence that an attack was imminent.

Similarly, a state in the position of being a global hegemon may need to intervene abroad to maintain freedom of the seas, a vital prerequisite to global free trade (naval hegemony is a good predictor of increased trade among states).

[maxpot46]

1. The sea and fish
Block's essay admits that there are technical limitations that make it unfeasible to implement such a policy right now. I do agree that technological changes might make it possible for property rights in the air or water at some point. The typology I specified reflects that - if fish, air and water became excludable in a cost effective manner, they should be treated as private goods. Until then you have a problem (and will likely always have such a problem, since an advancing technological frontier creates new common pool resources, even as it solves problems surrounding old ones. If this is the limit of your view, then we don't necessarily disagree. My problem with this view is that it's generally used to justify government intervention in areas where there are no such technical issues. If you don't use it in such a fashion, we have little to disagree upon, but it still was worth mentioning that there can be no tragedy of the commons with private property.
2. Positive externalities, empirical reasoning and monopolies
Oh you silly Austrians. We may not have an exact counterfactual, but there are always states with varying degrees of public investment (and earlier or later times in a state's history when the balance between private and public goods was different). We can use techniques like statistical regressions to gauge the relative effect of different policies. Theory without empirical confirmation is theology. How can you falsify something if you refuse to look at empirical results?You can't -- Austrian economics considers itself unfalsifiable because it makes deductions from axioms. I understand that modern economists believe they can use statistical regressions (I had to do quite a few to get my economics degree) to gauge the effect of policies but I disagree. I don't think positivist economists take seriously enough the methodological problems with measuring human values and behavior (especially the big problem, which is that humans do not exhibit regular and unchanging behavior, casting doubt on any conclusions you can draw from past data sets). In my experience, econometrics is rife with confirmation bias (regressions can be tweaked until the outcome is satisfactory to the researcher).The other thing is that you are overly harsh on monopolies. Consider an industry that exhibits increasing returns to scale. Is it socially optimal to have five firms producing some given output separately, or to have one firm producing that same output? Clearly the monopoly will able to produce at a much lower point on a cost curve - and may even charge less than would the firms under perfect competition. There are a lot of industries (aerospace, for instance) that fit this general pattern. In particular are instances where there is a high fixed cost needed to enter the industry. Let me define my terms -- monopolies are producers who use government force to exclude competitors. If competitors are not excluded, there is no monopoly even with a single producer, because the producer is in competition with potential producers. In that case, he retains an incentive to continue making a high-quality product and to keep the price at (or below) the market price in order to discourage new market entrants, unlike a monopolist (my definition) who has no competition and therefore has the incentive to maximize price and minimize product quality. So we agree that a single producer might be socially optimal, but you consider that a monopoly and I don't. A true monopoly (my definition) would never charge a below market price -- though they might be able to and still remain profitable, why would they give money away? Keeping prices low is a tactic used to discourage competitors, which is not necessary if you don't have any.

As far as high entry costs, if there are profits, there will be willing investors chasing them.Moreover, under perfect competition profits are competed down to "normal profits", or some profit equal to the opportunity cost of the next best investment. In a static sense this is optimal, but what about over the long haul? Economic (above-normal) profits maintained by entry barriers (whether reaped by a government or private monopoly) are reinvested in R&D, dividends and plant expansion, all of which spur long-term growth. Firstly, there is no such thing as perfect competition, which does not exist in the real world (given its unrealistic assumptions of perfect information, identical products, "many" small producers and no exit/entry barriers). Secondly, it describes an equilibrium state, which also does not exist in the real world. Thirdly, all profits can be reinvested, not just "above-normal" ones.

In any case, you claim that monopoly profits are reinvested and can spur long-term growth, but there is no incentive for a monopoly to do so without competition. Even if they chose that path, it is competition that determines which long-term growth is viable by causing the failure of companies that chose the wrong path. Without competition, you have no way of knowing if the investments are socially optimal or not.
3. The calculation argument
The calculation argument presumes that the government controls the means of production. I am not proposing such a state of affairs. Rather, I am proposing the operation of a free market with some government intervention. Market prices would be distorted by government intervention, but that is acceptable, if the ill effect of the distortion is outweighed by positive impact of the intervention. Any intervention creates winners and losers, so who decides what is socially optimal? And what of the knowledge problem as outlined by Hayek?4. Price stability and the Gold standard
I am talking about the early 80's till today. No, they didn't exhibit zero inflation, but inflation was consistently low, despite governments being able to enact countercyclical policies. The CPI more than doubled from 1980 to 2005, so I'm not sure I agree with your categorization of inflation as "consistently low". It is only low compared to the 70's rate of inflation.5. Freeriding and the military
Firstly, what would prevent mercenaries from colluding? They would have a strong incentive to do so, and the means to create barriers to entry into the mercenary market - both with force, or a credible commitment to undercut potential entrants.Nothing -- there is nothing wrong with collusion, only coercion. Even if they formed a cartel, they would have to please customers to get paid. If they simply seized money (using force), they become criminals instead of businessmen and would be opposed by the population and eventually overthrown.
Free-riding does not predict zero contributions to public goods like defence, but it does mean that it is unlikely individuals would contribute at the socially optimal level.What do you mean by "socially optimal level"? Isn't that just your opinion? If people cannot be persuaded to contribute as much as you prefer, then you end up with a military smaller than you prefer. If this is insufficient to repel an invader, then it would seem that most folks feel a new overlord is "socially optimal" (which I find highly unlikely, with a greater chance that contributions to the military ratchet up in the presence of a legitimate threat).
You yourself denote a limitation in saying that people might contribute for defensive purposes but not offensive ones. That is problematic because an effective defence sometimes requires preemptive or preventive actions. Israel, for instance, attacked Egypt first in the 1967 war because Mossad had fairly incontrovertible evidence that an attack was imminent.If an attack was imminent, you don't think the people of Israel would contribute? Or do you prefer that they be forced to contribute without the government having to persuade them with the facts?

I strongly condemn pre-emptive warfare. If others disagree, they can open their own wallets and leave mine alone.
Similarly, a state in the position of being a global hegemon may need to intervene abroad to maintain freedom of the seas, a vital prerequisite to global free trade (naval hegemony is a good predictor of increased trade among states).Then again they should have no problem acquiring funds by persuasion and not coercion.

[eternaltriangle]

Clearly this debate has become about epistomology (and you hold an epistomology that is unfalsifiable making debate extra-unproductive). I suppose the upside is that we will both leave the table thinking we have clearly reamed the other person with our superior logic. Lets turn to that epistomological debate instead.

1. Falsifiability and empirics
What is the use of a theory that cannot be falsified? Without falsification you have theology - internally consistent (though some theologies, like Marxism, and Christianity are not actually consistent) but practically useless. The fact that Austrians use axioms and deductive laws does not necessarily imply falsification. For instance, economists and political scientists often use formal modeling techniques in order to generate hypotheses, which by nature can be proven wrong.

Why is empirical confirmation of a theory a bad thing? I agree that there are problems with the use of statistics (I am a political scientists, and things are surely worse in my field than in economics) or case studies, but they nonetheless provide us with more information than if we did not have them. Or, put more bluntly, what can you accomplish by eschewing those tools that I can't by employing them?

2. Monopolies, mercenaries and coercion
Perfect competition is an ideal point, but there are many industries and activities fairly close to that ideal point. They generally invest little in productivity improvements and - even if efficient in a static sense - can be worse than a monopoly in the long run.

Monopolies have long-term incentives to increase productivity in the long run, because by reducing costs they can increase profits - even if they have no competitors. Of course monopolies are always under some threat of market entry, even if minimal. Increasing productivity provides an additional safeguard against prospective market entry.

As for mercenaries, you draw the naive assumption that mercenaries would eventually be overthrown. Surely the extensive power of tyranny in the world today is testament to the fact that the people are not inevitably victors over tyrants. Privatization of the military (and I mean full privatization, some limited augmentation of strength with mercenaries is not a real problem), however, creates a situation where tyranny is a very likely outcome.

Will people automatically contribute enough to stop an oncoming invasion? That is also a bold assumption, and if I were talking about national survival, I would rather trust in what works than in faith in the goodwill of mankind. It is a tradeoff - accept some limited coercion by one's own state to avoid enslavement by another.

3. Social utility functions
I agree as per Arrow's paradox that it is essentially impossible to accurately model comparisons of utility functions across individuals. That doesn't mean it is impossible to make a relatively good guess in some instances. Most people would prefer to have more wealth, for instance. Simply because our ability to predict utilities is imperfect, is no reason to avoid making such predictions.

[Radamisto]

I believe that the appropriate size is zero and the role - none. In other words, I believe that any organisation based on the initiation of agression is completely unnecessary and should be abolished.

[maxpot46]

Will people automatically contribute enough to stop an oncoming invasion? That is also a bold assumption, and if I were talking about national survival, I would rather trust in what works than in faith in the goodwill of mankind. It is a tradeoff - accept some limited coercion by one's own state to avoid enslavement by another.This reminds me of a passage from H.G. Wells Outline of History (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) (which I give my strongest possible recommendation, it is an amazing book):
Three things in particular may be cited to sustain the opinion that this period [the Roman Empire] was a period of widespread unhappiness. The first of these is the extraordinary apathy of the population to political events. They saw one upstart pretender to empire succeed another with complete indifference. Such things did not seem to matter to them; hope had gone. When presently the barbarians poured into the empire, there was nothing but the legions to face them. There was no popular uprising against them at all. Everywhere the barbarians must have been out numbered if only the people had resisted. But the people did not resist. It is manifest that to the bulk of its inhabitants the Roman Empire did not seem to be a thing worth fighting for. To the slaves and common people the barbarian probably seemed to promise more freedom and less indignity than the pompous rule of the imperial official and grinding employment by the rich.

[Tristan]

I believe that the appropriate size is zero and the role - none. In other words, I believe that any organisation based on the initiation of agression is completely unnecessary and should be abolished.

Pretty much the opposite of me. I think your "initiation of aggression" (a very weird way of putting it) is an essential part of life on the planet. All life is competitive. Government presents us with a means of lifting the violent elements out of everyday life, shouldering them onto armies, police and judges.

In respect to this discussion, the core roles of government are entrenched in violence, giving it focus, curbing it wherever possible. Government should never be a very "popular" thing, it should not aim to save the downtrodden, or instill us with morals du jour. Charity is a voluntary act, and it should gratify the giver, not a politician spending others' money. All the government can do really well is tax, wage war, and punish crimes.