(01-28-2018, 02:44 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:(01-28-2018, 05:07 AM)nebraska Wrote: Government can't help, it can only hurt.
I think it was Ben Franklin who organized the early attempts to cobble the streets and have a full time post office in Philadelphia. I still use similar services. They help. Similarly I am happy to see criminals and other nations deterred.
Precisely. There are things that only the government can do, can do effectively, and can do equitably; the only constraint on allowing the government to do such is that doing such is either economically pointless or morally objectionable -- and that is why we have legislatures. It's up to the legislatures to apportion or deny funds. Building a freeway connecting Phoenix and Las Vegas makes sense; building a bridge across Lake Michigan to connect Milwaukee to some place on the opposite shore of Lake Michigan (to Holland or Muskegon) would be senseless due to high cost and slight benefit. It is grossly wrong to establish concentration camps, torture chambers, or slave markets -- which has nothing to do with cost and benefit.
It cannot reasonably demand that a merchant cobble the street adjoining his property. We are discussing public goods here, and government can at times disperse costs and benefits so widely that it's hard to say who benefits and thus who in particular should pay. K-12 education is a prime example, as are national defense, a police force, courts of law, and ordinary highways. Yes, prisons -- so that people with a desire to steal my car for a joyride know that they have a jail cell awaiting them if they go through with grand theft auto.
Quote:The more people live close together, the more they see the benefits of working together for the common good. Thus there is a divide between urban and rural views on what government should do. There is also a significant division of wealth, with the resultant difference of opinion on what should be done and who best pays for it.
... as shown by the 2008 election which had opposing views on the rightful scope of government as a partisan divide. Except for a combination of roughly 65 counties, cities independent of county government, and the District of Columbia, Barack Obama would have lost the election. Those 65 communities as a whole included such behemoths of population as the fiver boroughs of New York, such counties as Suffolk and Westchester (NY); Passaic and Bergen (NJ); Wayne (MI): Cuyahoga, Franklin, and Hamilton (OH); Mecklenburg (NC); Miami-Dade, Pinellas, Hillsborough, and Orange (FL); Allegheny (PA); Marion and Lake (IN); Cook (IL); Milwaukee (WI); Hennepin and Ramsey (MN); Denver (CO); King (WA); Multnomah (OR); and such cities as Philadelphia, Baltimore, Arlington, Alexandria, Richmond, and San Francisco. The counties and cities include cities and counties whose states did not go for Obama, such as St. Louis; and counties containing Kansass City, Atlanta, Birmingham, Memphis, Louisville, New Orleans, Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, and Austin.
The determining factor was population density. The 65 cities of course included some gigantic cities and their highly-populated suburbs. They also included such 'independent cities' as Harrisonburg, Fredericksburg, and Colonial Heights; Virginia has lots of 'independent cities'. A high population density requires more and bigger expenditures just to keep things from falling apart. A four-lane expressway that is far more than necessary in either Dakota (ultimate destinations perhaps being Minneapolis, Winnipeg, Omaha, or even Seattle or Chicago would be woefully inadequate in northeastern New Jersey. Costs of improvement to infrastructure are much higher in densely-populated places due to costs of acquiring property and re-aligning utilities. Because of a higher cost of living, high-density communities must pay higher salaries to cops (so that they have good cause to not sell out to mobsters) and teachers (because they have skill sets useful in alternative employment) than do rural communities too small for rackets and in which the most viable career option for a schoolteacher is 'checker-cashier' in a convenience store.
Quote:There are libertarians who lie, who claim no services should be provided. I try to respect that, but have trouble with those who would rather lie than compromise. I can believe that government (can be) corrupt, that it can be out to serve specific interests. I can believe people do not need services but are forced to pay for them. There will always be the possibility to improve.
Many libertarians are deluded about their own capacities for taking care of themselves. The secret to having a sort-of-OK life in America (aside from owning assets that provide an adequate income) is to specialize in some trade or profession (which requires some schooling) or owning and operating a business. If you own a fast-food place or a convenience store you certainly want good roads to get customers and an effective police force to bust anyone who pulls a gun on you or your employees. But this said -- if you are a CPA you cannot be your own policeman.
As for schooling -- one hopes that teachers are able to inculcate some good habits in students, including a solid work ethic, respect for private and public property, and a willingness to avoid doing personal violence. Parents can be grossly inadequate at such. Law enforcement? Like most people I hate drugs and drunk driving, let alone street crime. Maybe I can concede that marijuana isn't anywhere near as bad as heroin, meth, or cocaine...
Quote:But government is not going away soon, and can help. Stating otherwise is simply a lie which discredits.
Precisely! There has never been a Libertarian state, and there never will be. Libertarian responses to social problem smight work on occasion, but as a general program it leaves all too many people free to do their worst.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.