Regicollis
Active member
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2009
- Messages
- 318
- Reaction score
- 163
- Location
- Denmark
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
What is the most important role of government; to raise the wealth of the people or to raise the well-being of the people?
Neither. The most important role of government is to protect individual liberty.
So individual liberty should be the main aim for government, even when it makes people poor or miserable?
So individual liberty should be the main aim for government, even when it makes people poor or miserable?
So individual liberty should be the main aim for government, even when it makes people poor or miserable?
There seems to be a widespread notion amongst the replies that government ought to do nothing but protecting a few rights and defend the national territory. However I feel it is important to bear in mind that the decision not to do anything is also a decision. Unbridled capitalism is also a government program.
Governments have to make decisions on policies whether libertarians like it or not and so far people seem in favour of basing these decisions on what will increase the well-being of the people.
Of course a case could be made that the greatest well-being will be achieved by the political system deciding to let go of all reins and let capitalist competition rule unchallenged. However something suggests that this is not the case, that societies with great inequalities, while sometimes being able to be among the wealthier ones, experience greater amount of discomfort, depressions and mental disorders than more equal, less competitive societies. All their wealth don't seem to buy them happiness.
Neither- it's not the role of government to insure either. Protection of rights and defense of the country are legitimate.
It has nothing to do with letting capitalism run unchallenged, it's letting people do what they want as long as it hurts no one else.
Assuming that capitalism is all that will develop is untrue as well, there can be many micro communities based on whatever belief system they want it to be and no one should bother or challenge them either, as long as they are hurting no one else.
How big can these "micro communities" be? If I have one of these micro communities that generally adheres to free market principles but without the libertarian laissez-faire dogma, and it grows to, say, 300 million people and spans a continent, is that still OK?
As long as I am not force to participate in their social programs and I am not forced to pay their taxes and penalties, then be my guest.
Then that defeats the whole purpose of these "micro communities," if the people who live in them aren't required to follow the rules. Therefore it's disingenuous to even suggest this.
And I pose the same question to you: Who made you the sole arbiter of what government's role should be?
There seems to be a widespread notion amongst the replies that government ought to do nothing but protecting a few rights and defend the national territory. However I feel it is important to bear in mind that the decision not to do anything is also a decision. Unbridled capitalism is also a government program.
Governments have to make decisions on policies whether libertarians like it or not and so far people seem in favour of basing these decisions on what will increase the well-being of the people.
Of course a case could be made that the greatest well-being will be achieved by the political system deciding to let go of all reins and let capitalist competition rule unchallenged. However something suggests that this is not the case, that societies with great inequalities, while sometimes being able to be among the wealthier ones, experience greater amount of discomfort, depressions and mental disorders than more equal, less competitive societies. All their wealth don't seem to buy them happiness.
So individual liberty should be the main aim for government, even when it makes people poor or miserable?
Your question was foolish, so I had to answer it as best as possible.
You assume that 300 million people would want the same thing.
Harry Guerrilla said:I did, it's my life and I only get 1 shot to live it, so to have some arbitary body of people, who don't know me or my needs and wants, make decisions for me is insulting.
Harry Guerrilla said:How could the government possibly make everyone content?
I see. So these "micro communities" can grow until you decide that the people don't all want the same thing anymore.
That has always been the case throughout human history, unless you want to be a hunter-gatherer living in the woods who doesn't rely on anyone else.
The things that make it possible for you to live your life the way you want to (roads, schools, law enforcement, etc) aren't free.
It can't. What's your point?
I didn't say that at all, you are just assuming once again that such a community can exist, it can't as we have seen.
Harry Guerrilla said:I certainly don't need your schools and many of the other things outside of law enforcement and roads.
Harry Guerrilla said:It should stop trying to.
The fact that it's impossible to satisfy 100% of people doesn't mean that it shouldn't do anything.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?