Should Marriage Be Within The Scope of Government?

[Fisher]

Companies compete for limited resources...and now countries compete for limited resources. Therefore let's have companies and countries produce things that do not match people's preferences? Socialism will never work. Why? Because production only makes sense when it's guided by demand. Government planners are not omniscient. Without consumers expressing their preferences government planners can't possible know how much of any good to supply. Therefore we end up with the massive misallocation of society's limited resources.

I didn't say socialism but a hybrid. Government planners could very well be the best people to take over the electrical grid, for instance, just not the supermarket.

 

[Xerographica]

You're unconscious and someone claims they are your kin/spouse.

So what? Before I was unconscious I should have indicated who my next of kin was. I should have told the hospital who my spouse was. If I didn't, then my spouse would simply provide a legal document that would prove that she was my spouse. The hospital could then verify the relationship simply by contacting whichever organization supplied the document.

Which most people don't have and you are not going to legally be able to force people to make a will. It would violate their rights and people aren't going to stand for it. The majority like having people considered their legal family.

What do you think is required for a document to be considered "legal"?

Sure. I get paid. My husband gets paid. I get police protection if I need it. I get housing, insurance, etc. I get schooling for my children (in the near future anyway). I got schooled long ago. My family had schooling. I feel protected from internal and external enemies (at least to some degree). My kids aren't dying of lead poisoning or choking on smog. My family is free to explore the many protected, beautiful lands of this country, lands that I should one day work in to help protect. I recognize that I have a good life due in no small part to the country I live in.

You got schooled long ago? Clearly you didn't get your money's worth because you obviously never learned about the preference revelation problem.

If you're going to hang out in the economics forum...please do everybody a favor and make the effort to learn a thing or two about economics.

 

[Xerographica]

I didn't say socialism but a hybrid. Government planners could very well be the best people to take over the electrical grid, for instance, just not the supermarket.

Is the preference revelation problem a real problem?

 

[Fisher]

Is the preference revelation problem a real problem?

I don't see how that applies to the issue of electricity since it is not really a public good at this point in the US. Perhaps I am missing something in what you are asking.

 

[roguenuke]

So what? Before I was unconscious I should have indicated who my next of kin was. I should have told the hospital who my spouse was. If I didn't, then my spouse would simply provide a legal document that would prove that she was my spouse. The hospital could then verify the relationship simply by contacting whichever organization supplied the document.



What do you think is required for a document to be considered "legal"?



You got schooled long ago? Clearly you didn't get your money's worth because you obviously never learned about the preference revelation problem.

If you're going to hang out in the economics forum...please do everybody a favor and make the effort to learn a thing or two about economics.

The rest of us live in reality where the majority of people do not make living wills or wills at all until well into life, if they write one at all.

I got more than my money's worth, trust me. You put a different value on things than I do. Plus, considering you have no idea how much I did or did not pay in taxes, then you have no idea how much I got from those taxes I may have paid in.

 

[Xerographica]

I don't see how that applies to the issue of electricity since it is not really a public good at this point in the US. Perhaps I am missing something in what you are asking.

You said that government planners could be the best people to take over the electrical grid. My response was to ask you whether the preference revelation problem is a real problem. If you want government planners to determine the amount of any good that should be supplied...then how is the preference revelation problem not relevant?

 

[Fisher]

You said that government planners could be the best people to take over the electrical grid. My response was to ask you whether the preference revelation problem is a real problem. If you want government planners to determine the amount of any good that should be supplied...then how is the preference revelation problem not relevant?

Because the electric grid adjusts to changes in demand independent of what the government planners would want. For so long as demand did not exceed total capacity to meet that demand, then the grid itself compensates with the whole "more power/less power" thing. Nobody has to guess when I turn on my oven because the grid allows me to turn it on and turn it off with zero consequence to me or the grid system. It is not comparable to deciding how many trees will be harvested and how much timber will be committed to toilet paper v. lumber.

 

[Xerographica]

The rest of us live in reality where the majority of people do not make living wills or wills at all until well into life, if they write one at all.

I asked you what is required for a document to be considered "legal".

I got more than my money's worth, trust me. You put a different value on things than I do. Plus, considering you have no idea how much I did or did not pay in taxes, then you have no idea how much I got from those taxes I may have paid in.

LOL. The only way I'll trust that you got more than your money's worth is if you didn't pay any taxes at all. Right now you pay for a bundle of public goods. Do you know what happens when goods are bundled together? It's impossible for you to determine whether you are getting your money's worth...

Every year, 100 million homes pay for a bundle of cable channels. Like any bundle, it's hard to see exactly what they are paying for. That is somewhat the point of bundling -- to disguise the true cost of the constituent items. - Derek Thompson The End of TV and the Death of the Cable Bundle

Now do yourself and everybody else the favor of learning about the preference revelation problem. Because until you do so, you'll be living in some fantasy world where government planners know exactly how much you value public welfare.

 

[Xerographica]

Because the electric grid adjusts to changes in demand independent of what the government planners would want. For so long as demand did not exceed total capacity to meet that demand, then the grid itself compensates with the whole "more power/less power" thing. Nobody has to guess when I turn on my oven because the grid allows me to turn it on and turn it off with zero consequence to me or the grid system. It is not comparable to deciding how many trees will be harvested and how much timber will be committed to toilet paper v. lumber.

Eh? The market works because demand determines the supply. The public sector fails because it's government planners who determine the supply. If government planners do not determine the supply...then clearly there's no problem. If government planners do not determine the supply then this is consistent with capitalism.

Allowing taxpayers to choose where their taxes go would be a hybrid. The public sector would still be there but the supply of public goods would be determined by the demand for public goods. Are you in favor of pragmatarianism? If not, then please explain your "hybrid" system in more detail.

 

[Fisher]

Eh? The market works because demand determines the supply. The public sector fails because it's government planners who determine the supply. If government planners do not determine the supply...then clearly there's no problem. If government planners do not determine the supply then this is consistent with capitalism.

Allowing taxpayers to choose where their taxes go would be a hybrid. The public sector would still be there but the supply of public goods would be determined by the demand for public goods. Are you in favor of pragmatarianism? If not, then please explain your "hybrid" system in more detail.

I am not committed to a particular model as I do not pretend to understand every facet of every market nor would I trust anyone who did make such a claim. As far as utilities, the government can plan and supply the sources of production to create a standard model for electrical costs across the nation and demand on the grid increases or decreases production.

 

[Henrin]

Well, first and most importantly, Libertarians have such an inconsistent doctrine with such unrealistic expectations of what would really happen if their policies were implemented, I think of them more as lazy anarchist. That said, everything has a season. Capitalism worked well enough in the US, but will not serve us well in the future given the competition from the global capitalists now. I think we need to start thinking about hybrid economic models.

There is so much wrong with this post. We already practice a hybrid economic model and interestingly its failing. Completion is never a bad thing unless you are uncompetitive and refuse to do anything to fix the problem. What we will probably do is try to protect ourselves from this competition instead of adjusting to it and admit that any system of trade and voluntary exchange is governed by the desires and needs of those involved. If people even in your own country find what you bring to the table undesirable and not worth what you want in exchange for it you have a very serious problem on your hands that you better learn to deal with to survive in the market. A refusal to self reflect is not a problem with capitalism or voluntary exchange, but a problem of those that refuse to self reflect.

There isn't anything unrealistic about what libertarians believe or what they think will happen if what they say is followed. We do not promote that our ideas will bring you unconstrained happiness,or even promise you a wonderful life. We know freedom is hard, takes strength, and takes a strong sense of moral character to maintain. I find the power of the people is in their own hands and their own mind carried out through their own potential. I understand that society is nothing more than individuals and we must learn to treat it as our responsibility to make our lives what we want it be. Everything I believe is shaped around the idea that people should be free to what they desire shaped around the three basic pillars of rights life, liberty, and estate and I'm wise enough to understand what that calls for me to support in government. Capitalism is a logical conclusion for this foundation as it promotes freedom and prosperity like no other system that allows us to trade whatever we desire in exchange for whatever else we desire, be that our labor in exchange for money or anything else.

As for the topic, Marriage is a personal affair between two people that desire to share their live together that should be treated as such by those around them. If these individuals wish to involve themselves in a contract than its the states job to enforce it, but that is it. It is a personal affair and is therefore personal, not a matter of government to dictate its terms, its benefits, and provide it tax breaks to promote it.

 

[Fisher]

There is so much wrong with this post. We already practice a hybrid economic model and interestingly its failing. Completion is never a bad thing unless you are uncompetitive and refuse to do anything to fix the problem. What we will probably do is try to protect ourselves from this competition instead of adjusting to it and admit that any system of trade and voluntary exchange is governed by the desires and needs of those involved. If people even in your own country find what you bring to the table undesirable and not worth what you want in exchange for it you have a very serious problem on your hands that you better learn to deal with to survive in the market. A refusal to self reflect is not a problem with capitalism or voluntary exchange, but a problem of those that refuse to self reflect.

There isn't anything unrealistic about what libertarians believe or what they think will happen if what they say is followed. We do not promote that our ideas will bring you unconstrained happiness,or even promise you a wonderful life. We know freedom is hard, takes strength, and takes a strong sense of moral character to maintain. I find the power of the people is in their own hands and their own mind carried out through their own potential. I understand that society is nothing more than individuals and we must learn to treat it as our responsibility to make our lives what we want it be. Everything I believe is shaped around the idea that people should be free to what they desire shaped around the three basic pillars of rights life, liberty, and estate and I'm wise enough to understand what that calls for me to support in government. Capitalism is a logical conclusion for this foundation as it promotes freedom and prosperity like no other system that allows us to trade whatever we desire in exchange for whatever else we desire, be that our labor in exchange for money or anything else.

As for the topic, Marriage is a personal affair between two people that desire to share their live together that should be treated as such by those around them. If these individuals wish to involve themselves in contract than its the states job to enforce it, but that is it. It is a personal affair and is therefore personal, not a matter of government to dictate its terms, its benefits, and provide it tax breaks to promote it.

That sounds well and good but without the Federal Reserve System, the bane of libertarians, we would still be living in sod houses, dying of illnesses that could be cured with a pill, and having to haul our buts to the outhouse in the middle of the night when the windchill is at zero.

 

[Henrin]

That sounds well and good but without the Federal Reserve System, the bane of libertarians, we would still be living in sod houses, dying of illnesses that could be cured with a pill, and having to haul our buts to the outhouse in the middle of the night when the windchill is at zero.

Damn, that is huge claim you are making there. It's like you think time would have just stood still if it wasn't for the Federal Reserve. How absurd.

 

[Fisher]

Damn, that is huge claim you are making there. It's like you think time would have just stood still if it wasn't for the Federal Reserve. How absurd.

Strange that you think the government would be able to have built all them highways, bridges, tunnels, airports, tanks, missiles without it, let alone fought all them wars, not to mention stabilize the financial system every time that wonderful free market hits a snag.

 

[Henrin]

Strange that you think the government would be able to have built all them highways, bridges, tunnels, airports, tanks, missiles without it, let alone fought all them wars, not to mention stabilize the financial system every time that wonderful free market hits a snag.

Strange list to give to a libertarian.

 

[mr4anarchy]

Here are just a few reasons why government has a compelling interest to regulate marriage (and dissolution of marriage)

1. Who gets the farm?

2. Who gets the house?

3. Who gets the kids?

4. Who pays for the kids?

5. Who gets the bank account?

6. Who gets the stock portfolio?

7. Who gets the vacation photos?

8. Who gets to visit whom in the hospital?

9. Who pays the taxes owed after the other is gone?

10. Who pays the credit card company after the other is gone?

11. Who goes to jail when the other is beaten?

12. Who has standing in court?

11. Who can be forced to testify against whom?

Mariage impacts are private and public lives in thousands of different ways. It started as a business deal, a trading of lands/livestock for a daughter, a transfer of property (the girl), and has developed into a very complicated legal mechanism.

 

[Fisher]

Strange list to give to a libertarian.

Like I said you are all lazy anarchist so I thought I'd make a shopping list for you.

 

[Henrin]

Like I said you are all lazy anarchist so I thought I'd make a shopping list for you.

You logic is faulty. You listed a bunch of stuff you support created through government power as if that matters to your overall point of the government being necessary for advancement.

 

[Fisher]

Here are just a few reasons why government has a compelling interest to regulate marriage (and dissolution of marriage)

1. Who gets the farm?

2. Who gets the house?

3. Who gets the kids?

4. Who pays for the kids?

5. Who gets the bank account?

6. Who gets the stock portfolio?

7. Who gets the vacation photos?

8. Who gets to visit whom in the hospital?

9. Who pays the taxes owed after the other is gone?

10. Who pays the credit card company after the other is gone?

11. Who goes to jail when the other is beaten?

12. Who has standing in court?

11. Who can be forced to testify against whom?

Mariage impacts are private and public lives in thousands of different ways. It started as a business deal, a trading of lands/livestock for a daughter, a transfer of property (the girl), and has developed into a very complicated legal mechanism.

No that is a list of what it does--it does not have to do all that; some of that is indifferent to marital status; and some if it is just silliness. BTW, spousal privilege is statutory, not Constitutional, as is Clergy privilege.

 

[roguenuke]

No that is a list of what it does--it does not have to do all that; some of that is indifferent to marital status; and some if it is just silliness. BTW, spousal privilege is statutory, not Constitutional, as is Clergy privilege.

As long as spousal privilege exists, it is still covered under the Constitution. In other words, if one person is allowed to claim spousal privilege due to just their status as a spouse, then the state must equally protect everyone else's ability to use that privilege until it is legally taken away as a privilege.

You seem to have some major problem with the 9th and 14th Amendments.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

There are plenty of libertarians who have offered plenty of excellent explanations why capitalism is far superior to socialism...

I never said capitalism isn't better than socialism.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

What nonsense. Capitalism works because of consumer sovereignty. Do you not understand the concept of consumer sovereignty? In case you missed it the first time, here you are choosing how much of your own time you spend on this forum. That's consumer sovereignty.

I don't think you understand what capitalism is. It is private ownership of capital goods. Consumer sovereignty works in capitalism, socialism or mixed economies.

 

[Xerographica]

Strange that you think the government would be able to have built all them highways, bridges, tunnels, airports, tanks, missiles without it, let alone fought all them wars, not to mention stabilize the financial system every time that wonderful free market hits a snag.

Again, is the preference revelation problem a real problem?

 

[Xerographica]

I don't think you understand what capitalism is. It is private ownership of capital goods. Consumer sovereignty works in capitalism, socialism or mixed economies.

How could you have consumer sovereignty when government planners decide how much money to spend on products/services? Do you really not understand the concept of supply and demand? Do you really not understand that "demand" is another word for "preference"? The preference revelation problem tells us that government planners do not know how much money should be spent on education or any other good. In other words, government planners do not know how much education you prefer/demand. Without this information they will supply the wrong amount of education. This means that we'll either have a surplus or a shortage of education. In other words, the allocation of resources will be inefficient.

Let me break this down into baby steps for you.

IDEA

It all starts with an idea on how society's limited resources can be used. For example, perhaps you have an idea for the best salad dressing ever.

QUESTION

Here's the most important question...how much of society's limited resources should be allocated to your idea? Clearly there is some optimal amount of resources that should be dedicated to your idea. What's optimal? Optimal is the amount of salad dressing that maximizes society's total benefit.

ANSWER

Markets work because it's up to consumers to decide for themselves whether or not they buy your salad dressing. Each and every consumer has the freedom to determine what quantity of your salad dressing will provide them with the maximum benefit. If they buy your product then they are giving your idea positive feedback. The more positive feedback you receive...the more of society's limited resources you'll be able to use.

WRONG ANSWER

Socialism fails because it's not up to consumers to decide how much of society's limited resources are used to produce your salad dressing. It's up to government planners. They decide exactly how much of your salad dressing to supply. But they can't know how much salad dressing to supply because they don't know exactly how much consumers value your salad dressing.

So what part of consumer sovereignty do you have trouble understanding?

 

[JP Hochbaum]

How could you have consumer sovereignty when government planners decide how much money to spend on products/services?

A government doesn't have to determine the prices of products or services in a socialist or mixed economy. You again fail to understand basic concepts of economies.