Inkwell Institute
Professor’s Classroom
Subject: Political Theory/Government/
Paper #6
As usual I must give the usual suspect the credit for turning me on to this subject (and the headaches that go with it) Quin of Quintessential Havoc (my blogroll will get you this this insightful person and his site)…..we have had exchanges on the need to limit and/or reduce the size of government….I first studied this subject when I was in grad school and the subject of Libertarianism was taught……
If you have even a small grasp of politics then you already know that the Libertarians are all about smaller government….but it goes beyond just the smaller size issue…there are those within the movement that see a way to all but eliminate government altogether…basically foreign policy would be the only thing that a Federal government would be in control of…if they got their way……..
I believe it was Robt. Nozick that said that it was not the state’s place to propose an end solution to the problems of society (that may be a bit simplified, but you get the idea)…that to bring about economic equality would entail the government interfering unacceptably in individual’s liberties……he believed that state taxes were a forced labor by government to redistribute wealth…( I guess that is a common Libertarian belief)…..
Nozick proposed a “Minimal State”….meaning that the state was to be cvonsigned to foreign policy and all else would be privatized, including such services as the police…..he believed the fundamental rights of property overrode everything else and to legislate it was a communal overriding of the individual’s well being….
So Nozick’s minimal state would be small, every Libertarians dream, and the people would be left to their own devices….basically, to me it says, people will be poor because they want to be poor…….
I do not agree with him…..I think that a government free from interference would produce a vast society of ignorant, unemployed and homeless individuals….I think many people would agree that this cost would be a bit excessive…….
So is a “minimal state” possible?…….I think not….for a true economic justice would be good for the country as a whole, both rich and poor alike…….a balance needs to be found between NO justice and Maxed out justice….there is a balance point but so far it has eluded me as well as everyone else…..
Would Somalia be an example of such a minimal state?
Hi Terrant…nice to see you again….
Good question….it would seem to be an example……
WRONG QUESTION! – Did you guess that would be my reponse? 😆
Of course it’s possible! The question you should be asking, though, is whether it’s DESIRABLE or not?
With the greatest of genuine respect (normally) to Terrant, I think his comment is just a cheap shot and rather silly. That’s just my opinion, of course, but I’m entitled to it – for now, though not for much longer, if we don’t curtail the current explosion of devious and corrupt megalamaniac riddled governments all over the democratic world.
Look, I don’t agree with Libertarians, but I DO agree with some (possibly most??) of the principles behind what they want…
In my view, government (any government) CANNOT EVER BE ENTIRELY TRUSTED OVER ANYTHING and should run ONLY… foreign policy (of course), the economy in broad terms and for the general benefit of all, education to the highest possible standards (according to the criteria of a NORMAL person – and preferrably one who knows absolutely NOTHING about statistics or targets!!), defence (NOT aggression), overall law and order where laws are basic and left to be interpreted on a local level by intelligent, well educated and above all sensible, unbiased and decent people who are well paid to do just that and very, VERY sackable (plus with the automatic right to FREE hearings for appeals to be heard at NATIONAL level) and finally, last but not least, free at the point of delivery healthcare – as free as humanly possible from bureaucratic administration and only subject to limited and simple national regulation together with the controls of the local MEDICS at the sharp end!
Government should have absolutely fuck all to do with anything else at all and neither they, nor their election campaigns should EVER be financed by ANYONE other than the state!
The truth is that well educated decent people CAN help their neighbours and used to do so with an enomous amount of success at a fraction of the cost of today’s state administered welfare. Furthermore, if people behave like assholes and try to take advantage of local people’s generosity, they find themselves very quickly out in the cold where they deserve to be. Whilst I DO think some sort of welfare should exist, but only as a temporary safety net), I simply believe that fewer people in a decent society that had no state welfare ever starved than do so today.
Most important in my view, you are QUITE wrong in that many poor people (not all by any means, but a significant quantity) are that way either from choice, or as a result of selfish and/or lazy choices they made in the past. Trust me on this! I know many of them personally and they are just as big assholes and crooks as the fithy rich bankers and politicians who are screwing us all daily.
Does any of THAT sound like Somalia? Incidentally, neither the US or the UK has the cahones to do anything useful about that dodgy state, although they both have the means, since it’s one of relatively few places in the world where you could still just send in a few gunboats, wipe out the “pirates” and their supporters and then just cruise home with some sort of order restored!
In my opinion, it’s ridiculous in the extreme to suggest that my sort of minimal state would lead to even the current level of ignorance or poverty (which is considerable) and your suggestion of “true economic justice would be good for the country as a whole, both rich and poor alike…….a balance needs to be found between NO justice and Maxed out justice….there is a balance point but so far it has eluded me as well as everyone else…..” is simply a pipe dream that flies in the face of all we know about human nature!
Your “balance” has not been found because it does not exist and, rather like the indeterminate nature of particles according to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, never can!
Sorry, but that’s (briefly) my view… 🙁
Well fine….I figured this one would get you a thinking……
First, I do not speak for Terrant….but I believe he was thinking along the lines of the lawlessness of Somalia that has not had a standing government in years…..
The minimal state that I was describing came from Nozick and I am sure that I may have left out something….as usual I try to write from memory and not Google unless I need to……But as far as the Libertarians go…I was reading a book entitled “Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism by Robt Murphy….ever notice thaa lot of the Libs are named Robert?…….it some disturbing chapters like cheap imports do not destroy jobs…..athletes deserve high salaries……capitalism defeats racism…..improves the environment….so for and so on….none of which I could agree with…
But human nature would make a minimal state not possible…if given the chance it would be more restrictive…..and the extreme idea that the state should be out of our lives with the exception of foreign policy is not a good idea….I do agree with them on the point that governmernt should not involve itself in my private life, like abortion, marriage, church, smoking, etc….but I DO think that there is a way to have a “good” government….and yes I cannot put my finger on it right now…but I am working on that….
But then I do think that we are capable of good governance….and NO I have not been drinking…lol
Well, I take all your points, but that’s where we differ – I don’t think we’re capable of good governance – and therefore not good government. As a result, my view (which used not to be so, but I guess I’ve become more “jaded” than you) is that they should get the fuck out of all our lives and leave us alone becasue anything they can do for us we can do a whole lot better and cheaper for ourselves – IF they don’t interfere.
The one thing a good government MUST do is to run the economy well – and by that I mean for the benefit of ALL, not just rich bastards, so therefore we (solely) should fund politicians to prevent them from being in the pockets of the rich and otherwise powerful (such as the unions and corporations).
The “welfare state”, however good I regard its intentions and however much I am loath to say anyone should just be left to go without if they’ve got nothing, has DESTROYED the UK and I don’t even any longer LIKE the people and the culture it has produced.
The thing is that, in spite of all the shit they talk and all the brainwashing they employ, I really don’t think the UK is in any way, shape, or form a better place than it was a hundred years ago or rather less when there was NO welfare state at all. Any difference in wealth levels for ordinary people, or the poor, are nothing to do with welfare and are simply the result of improved economics (until recently under Gordon Brown). In fact, I think things would have improved a whole lot more for most people (including the honest poor) WITHOUT the welfare state. The only people who have truly benefited are the layabouts, wasters, drug addicts and crooks. The rest of us would have done absolutely fine without it.
The ONE good thing that I would NOT lose is our healthcare – or rather it WAS until this latest Labour lot fucked it up!
Go ahead….throw the health thing in our face……LOL…sorry just had to be said..
Geez you know exactly what I am going to write before I write it…..is that plate in my head transmitting again…LOl….I have a post for next week called “Equal Rights Economy”……interesting huh?
I think that we can have good governance but it will take a massive amount of work and that will be expense and that is unacceptable right now…..so we keep the crap we got…
Well, I’d like to think you’re right, but I doubt it. These days I’m much more cynical and I you’re probably doing what is, I believe, a naval expression… pissin’ into the wind 😆
Well, to be honest, you’re both right. Given the description of the Nozik’s minimal state above, Somalia came to mind. You cannot get any more minimal than that. It was a cheap shot and silly (I was going for sarcastic but silly works). However, I could argue that Somalia represents a worse case scenario as a logical conclusion of such a minimal state.
In all seriousness, the model that the libertarians are wanting is similar to the Articles of Confederation but with more teeth. In concept, I think it would be a great idea. In practice, it would devolve into something similar to what one would find in latin America; a small minority controlling 99% of the wealth and no middle class to speak of.
Quin’s description would be what I would consider an ideal government. Just like an ideal gas or a frictionless surface, it does not work in the real world but makes for good conversation. The reason that I say this is because of human nature being as it is.
Terrant like I said before the book I cited kinda scared me…..of course it was written before the crash so I would guess that Mr. Murphy would be tweaking his stand a bit….We are heading in that direction….our middle class is slowly disappearing and there is NO concern about stopping the slide….
I think you’re absolutely right, but the trouble is that we kind of agree too much – i.e. human nature will screw up ANY system because you simply CANNOT legislate for it.
The trouble is that ALL the the systems and we have tried and can propose come up against that same problem – they DON’T WORK IN PRACTICE BECAUSE OF HUMAN NATURE!
My view has BECOME (over the years) “What’s the point? If you can’t do anything really well, maybe it’s best if you don’t do much at all and leave individuals to get on with their lives!”
I’ve always thought that it’s better to do five things well, rather than a hundred things badly – in almost all walks of life.
Multi tasking badly just isn’t good at anything. Or as Billy Connoly said: “If women are so bloody good at multi tasking, how come they can’t have a headache and sex at the same time?” (that’s MY cheap shot) 😆
HA! HA! Of course you are right…human nature can screw up a wet dream…..and then we could continue our rants on bureaucracy on which we both agree is killing any system…..
I know I usually get the glazed over stare when I start my rants in public…people just do not want to think about it at all….they elect people to do their thinking for them…and there is where my problem is….I do NOT want someone to do my thinking.