Watkins_deep Posted April 26, 2017 Posted April 26, 2017 Is a state or government needed and if so, then are taxes a necessary evil? Secondarily, if it is concluded the state is necessary then is at least some socialism inevitable. Because people will vote for their economic interest. Fyi I'm not arguing about if socialism is bad or economically sound or flawed but is it inevitable because governments are necessary?
Tiberius Posted April 26, 2017 Posted April 26, 2017 Is a state or government needed and if so, then are taxes a necessary evil? Secondarily, if it is concluded the state is necessary then is at least some socialism inevitable. Because people will vote for their economic interest. Fyi I'm not arguing about if socialism is bad or economically sound or flawed but is it inevitable because governments are necessary? Giving every single adult regardless of wealth/income is a form of socialism as it gives everyone the right to help decide how the nation's resources are used. From there all else flows towards "socialism"
row_33 Posted April 26, 2017 Posted April 26, 2017 Is a state or government needed and if so, then are taxes a necessary evil? Secondarily, if it is concluded the state is necessary then is at least some socialism inevitable. Because people will vote for their economic interest. Fyi I'm not arguing about if socialism is bad or economically sound or flawed but is it inevitable because governments are necessary? The ideal would be that a level of government exists only to the extent it is the only one that can provide services that a good society requires. (The UN and other organizations have no trouble drawing up charters and rights that are basically taken for granted in capitalist societies...) For examples.... defense from foreign invasion, building of highways and maintenance, local safety of the populace from wanton murder and crime, schooling, protection of religion or other legal activities that the minority takes part in, settling of disputes over broken business contracts... Probably has an ideal government plateau. The problem is once the higher level grabs it, you cannot shake it loose. And it will grow more and more and more every hour of the day.
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 26, 2017 Posted April 26, 2017 (edited) You touched on the entire purpose of limited government, constrained by a constitution. Edit: this is also the reason I believe the best way to organize a government is as a meritocracy. Edited April 26, 2017 by TakeYouToTasker
Azalin Posted April 26, 2017 Posted April 26, 2017 Is a state or government needed and if so, then are taxes a necessary evil? Secondarily, if it is concluded the state is necessary then is at least some socialism inevitable. Because people will vote for their economic interest. Fyi I'm not arguing about if socialism is bad or economically sound or flawed but is it inevitable because governments are necessary? Your question isn't one of capitalism vs socialism as much as it is federalism vs socialism. We live in the only nation that I know of where many citizens don't recognize the words "state" and "nation" as synonyms, but rather regard them as completely different things. A good starting point for learning more about this would be to look up several definitions or explanations of what federalism is and how it works.
Watkins_deep Posted April 26, 2017 Author Posted April 26, 2017 Your question isn't one of capitalism vs socialism as much as it is federalism vs socialism. We live in the only nation that I know of where many citizens don't recognize the words "state" and "nation" as synonyms, but rather regard them as completely different things. A good starting point for learning more about this would be to look up several definitions or explanations of what federalism is and how it works. i understand the difference. Was just using state as in " the state" or govt
row_33 Posted April 26, 2017 Posted April 26, 2017 A word means whatever one wants it to, who is master is the only question... or something like that...
Azalin Posted April 26, 2017 Posted April 26, 2017 i understand the difference. Was just using state as in " the state" or govt Then you understand that each of the 50 states has it's own elected legislature and a governor acting as an executive that signs that legislation into law, and that each of these state governments acts independently of the other 49 state governments; that this is how each state best serves the interests of it's citizenry. The role of the federal government is literally to defend the union's borders and provide for the general welfare - there is no need for the type of duplicate services provided by Washington that are already provided by the individual states. So there are "states", and there are "states".
unbillievable Posted April 26, 2017 Posted April 26, 2017 Sticking to economics: Governments (or a community leader) is needed to provide services that can benefit individuals without their contribution (freeloaders.) Let's start with the primary role of any government: mutual defense. People first gathered in groups to defend themselves from threats. This resulted in some members who were unable to fight being forced to contribute other resources to remain in the protected bubble. The argument against this is that individuals would just defend themselves, but that doesn't work because they would still reap the benefits of protection, living next to a well-armed group. Unfortunately this has taken a global consequence where the United states provides Military and Healthcare to entire world. While other nations reap the benefits of neglecting military spending and medical research, the cost of both is astronomical in the US. We are the world's police force and provide 4X more medical innovations than the rest of the world combined. It's the reason why universal healthcare and neglient military spending has spread so rapidly. They're freeloaders.
GoBills808 Posted April 26, 2017 Posted April 26, 2017 Your question isn't one of capitalism vs socialism as much as it is federalism vs socialism. We live in the only nation that I know of where many citizens don't recognize the words "state" and "nation" as synonyms, but rather regard them as completely different things. A good starting point for learning more about this would be to look up several definitions or explanations of what federalism is and how it works. A primer on the theory of socialism wouldn't hurt either. I think it's taken here to mean 'any service provided by the state for free' but that's really not what it means at all, at least in economic terms.
Magox Posted April 26, 2017 Posted April 26, 2017 As each year passes by and as technology advances, the need for more government in people's lives will only increase. Soon enough, in virtually all developed nations, automation, robotics and general advances in technology will eliminate the need for human capital on a mass macro level. Therefore governments will step in and subsidize people's lives. In my opinion, it is an inevitability we will see this, the question to me is how soon will this happen?
row_33 Posted April 26, 2017 Posted April 26, 2017 As each year passes by and as technology advances, the need for more government in people's lives will only increase. Soon enough, in virtually all developed nations, automation, robotics and general advances in technology will eliminate the need for human capital on a mass macro level. Therefore governments will step in and subsidize people's lives. In my opinion, it is an inevitability we will see this, the question to me is how soon will this happen? Regulations enforced by Federal agencies keep increasing. Any time I talk to an American in an occupation this effects i let them swear for 5 minutes before my next question. Human capital cannot be replaced wholly, certain things will never be adequately replaced by technology, no matter how much they scream it will.
GoBills808 Posted April 26, 2017 Posted April 26, 2017 Regulations enforced by Federal agencies keep increasing. Any time I talk to an American in an occupation this effects i let them swear for 5 minutes before my next question. Human capital cannot be replaced wholly, certain things will never be adequately replaced by technology, no matter how much they scream it will. I'm often arguing this point, actually, but when pressed to name something humans do that can't be replaced by tech...I'm usually at a loss. What's your example? Keep in mind the accelerated rate at which we are currently approaching true AI and the Turing test.
row_33 Posted April 26, 2017 Posted April 26, 2017 I'm often arguing this point, actually, but when pressed to name something humans do that can't be replaced by tech...I'm usually at a loss. What's your example? Keep in mind the accelerated rate at which we are currently approaching true AI and the Turing test. Improvement with experience is hard to replicate. Handling emotions that are raised by memory, by the memory of others, by morality tales. Original creativity, coming up with something that cannot be programmed. The understanding of irrational behaviour (or so-called) and useful prediction from it. I've read enough books about this from economic and sociological bents that show how tough this is to replicate or usefully predict. I won't stand in the way of tech and its benefits, but there's a lot of boasting about the future. Will have to wait and see. Good article on the matter: https://www.forbes.com/sites/chunkamui/2017/01/17/limits-of-ai/2/#f508e66c7e2d Best questions AI cannot handle... 1. What would be the first question you would ask Bob Dylan if you were to meet him? 7. Is there anything else I need to know? 9. Does what I am writing make sense?
GoBills808 Posted April 27, 2017 Posted April 27, 2017 Improvement with experience is hard to replicate. Handling emotions that are raised by memory, by the memory of others, by morality tales. Original creativity, coming up with something that cannot be programmed. The understanding of irrational behaviour (or so-called) and useful prediction from it. I've read enough books about this from economic and sociological bents that show how tough this is to replicate or usefully predict. I won't stand in the way of tech and its benefits, but there's a lot of boasting about the future. Will have to wait and see. Good article on the matter: https://www.forbes.com/sites/chunkamui/2017/01/17/limits-of-ai/2/#f508e66c7e2d Best questions AI cannot handle... 1. What would be the first question you would ask Bob Dylan if you were to meet him? 7. Is there anything else I need to know? 9. Does what I am writing make sense? I'd argue a lot of those questions would be equally difficult for a person to answer as a machine. As for others like 2, 4, 5, and 8 an well programmed aggregator would be able to piece together a passable response. It's in its infancy, but computer learning is not far off. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-neural-network-comput/
unbillievable Posted April 27, 2017 Posted April 27, 2017 I'm often arguing this point, actually, but when pressed to name something humans do that can't be replaced by tech...I'm usually at a loss. What's your example? Keep in mind the accelerated rate at which we are currently approaching true AI and the Turing test. Any job that requires desire would not be replaced by tech. By this I mean anything that involves doing something just because we want to do it; Invention. While a machine would be able to make ice-cream (or even find better ways to do it) it would have no desire to try putting bacon into it. Technology can replace cooks, but not chefs.
Azalin Posted April 27, 2017 Posted April 27, 2017 As each year passes by and as technology advances, the need for more government in people's lives will only increase. Soon enough, in virtually all developed nations, automation, robotics and general advances in technology will eliminate the need for human capital on a mass macro level. Therefore governments will step in and subsidize people's lives. In my opinion, it is an inevitability we will see this, the question to me is how soon will this happen? Not sure I follow you on this - do you mean increased government regulation and oversight of the deployment and use of emerging technologies? By my experience, technology tends to develop more quickly and affordably without government involvement.
B-Large Posted April 27, 2017 Posted April 27, 2017 Not sure I follow you on this - do you mean increased government regulation and oversight of the deployment and use of emerging technologies? By my experience, technology tends to develop more quickly and affordably without government involvement. I think he's saying "Basic Income", essentially automation on such a massive scale excess humans will not be required, but will exist... and it will be cheaper to just provide a basic government provided life.
B-Large Posted April 27, 2017 Posted April 27, 2017 Our government is foundational and its powers are specifically laid out in text. It's power to tax very concrete. It's not about socialism versus capitalism, Congress has the legal power to collect taxes and fund government responsibilities. Now what government "should" fund is a whole different question.
Watkins_deep Posted April 27, 2017 Author Posted April 27, 2017 I think he's saying "Basic Income", essentially automation on such a massive scale excess humans will not be required, but will exist... and it will be cheaper to just provide a basic government provided life. isnt that almost starting to happen now with welfare and the incredible efficiency of modern production Our government is foundational and its powers are specifically laid out in text. It's power to tax very concrete. It's not about socialism versus capitalism, Congress has the legal power to collect taxes and fund government responsibilities. Now what government "should" fund is a whole different question. I guess that is the fundamental question my whole issue is regardless of whether you agree with capitalism or socialism or a mix of both isn't it inevitable that socialism and social programs in general would flood the government because of certain economic interest mainly the middle class and poor people simply voting in their interest.If this is the case then could one logically make the argument at given how reality is down with resources and human labor in the necessity of government that socialism is the only outcome possible with maybe some gradient notion of private property still existing possibly private property meaning businesses and capital
Recommended Posts