Why don't you just choose not to break your leg or catch an infection or develop cancer in the first place? In a free market you can simply choose not to avail yourself of services you don't want and spend your money on something else instead.
I guess I am close to where YKY is with respect to "limited" government. Ie the core job of the state (Federal) is Defence/Rule of Law system/sound money etc. I would go one step further along the scale to the socialist side and say that it is ok for one (and strictly only one) level of government to attempt to provide services such as healthcare and education provided that people were able to "opt out" and go to the private sector for those services. But this is all on the proviso that one thing was to occur..... How it was paid for was equally taxed among the populous with the same percentage of tax. ie a flat tax that under no circumstances could be altered to suit the needs of the politicians of the time and that NONE of the services could be means tested with the exception of unemployment benefits if there were to be any. Just because the million dollar a year salary earner can afford private health insurance, should be the last reason to force him to have to adopt it... After all he has paid his fair share of the taxes that paid for his health care and he should be entitled to it. Same same for education and every other service.
^ I could happily live with that but I would question any need for the "sound" money role provided by the G. as history has shown that noone can really be trusted over the long term, especially governments in times of war. Competition on money supply is the only real way to keep it honest.
Problem I see with government is for the most part it starts out with good intentions, but somehow over time it morphs into a power-hungry beast. Over a few generations politicians seem to forget the original purpose of government and somehow think it's their right to become involved in every aspect of society and people's lives.
Mises (and many others) wrote extensively about this fundamental trend. You could say the problem is the business model - there is no objective measure of success combined with its monopoly on violence and hence there's no check and balance except what is imposed by political will. (Mind you I don't even know why I'm saying this because all you guys already know all this but after tapping it out will post anyway )
A little like Management Committees. Sometimes Committees (like governments) forget that they are their to serve the members instead they often act as though the organisations members are to serve/behave in accordance to the the Management Committee's wishes.
Hawkeye. I notice that essentially we are all agreeing with each other with maybe some relatively minor differences. Is there anything particular concept/issue you wanted to us to be discussing or flesh out?
I completely agree with you here. However, I would love to see a situation where sound money could be entered into the constitution (referendum?) after establishment and competing currencies also to become part of it. That could then be administered by an arms length government organisation (sole job of the RBA). Should any future government begin to stray from the constitution (forcing the RBA) any private citizen could simply take them to the high court.
Government as it stands should be hung, drawn and quartered, (starting with Jackboot Johnnie, but thats another topic) as to quote Steve Lee "They care more about their jobs than our future or our past". Whilst I do not like government as it stands, I do believe that there needs to be either a minimal government, or a bureaucratic system to manage large community projects, one example of this is Roads and vehicle licensing, Defence and emergency services are another. I do not mind paying a FAIR tax rate (such as 10% for everyone, no depreciation, no claims, nothing, a straight 10% for everyone regardless of whether you earn 10,000 or 1,000,000 a year and not a cent more) for the upkeep and maintenance on some things but for the most part Government should be non-existent IMHO
Heres a sound audio of a book written on the subject http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGKxp5nc1L8&list=PL4DD36C1BB008C381&index=1&feature=plpp_video Edit: added speel: Audio book version of Morris and Linda Tannehill's classic 1970 book 'The Market for Liberty,' as read by Ian Freeman. This work argues for a completely depoliticized world where all services are provided by private entrepreneurs. Morris and Linda Tannehill make a persuasive case for their vision of a stateless society.
The natural tendency for gov is to grow big. Personally I don't believe limited gov is possible. Some nice thoughts on this here by G Edward Griffin [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjx-xXwIkR8[/youtube] [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvkJ9RE61qg[/youtube] [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sMGkjgnGQ[/youtube]
Also this video by Chris Berg is pretty good (I posted a link to his related one showing the growth in number of new pages of legislation earlier in the year but I can't find it) [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wV5kUDVcT0[/youtube]
As we suggested earlier a constitutional separation/limit of powers (i.e. economy vs state) particularly w.r.t. funding versus spending is needed. However, on reflection if the level of funding is mandated and enforced by the state then that would seem to inevitably lead to an extreme militant state (even worse than spreading the waste around many portfolios). So somehow need to separate the entity which is given a monopoly on violence from the one that raises income. Nothing obvious comes to mind. It's a real conundrum methinks but surely someone has given this some thought. EDIT: And I liked Griffin's distinction between Government and Protectorate: - Government's govern people which, when you have one group of people who can govern another group of people it ultimately degenerates into a criminal syndicate. - A Protectorate protects the lives, liberty and property of its citizens and nothing more.
This guy speaks with clarity on many of these matters. Speel: A Discourse on Government by G. Edward Griffin "Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. It is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." -- Attributed to George Washington This program consists of unedited responses to questions presented to G. Edward Griffin by a camera crew creating a documentary on the U.S. Constitution. In this session, he answers the most difficult questions imaginable in the fields of political and social science. The depth and clarity of his response is amazing, especially considering he is speaking extemporaneously without benefit of script or notes. In an era when many people are just now waking up to the WHAT of current events, here are issues for the brain that go far beyond that shallow pool into the deep water of WHY and HOW. Also included is a bonus feature entitled Winning for America, Mr. Griffin's commentary on the Ron Paul 2008 campaign and a long-term strategy for victory offered by Freedom Force International. With these programs together, be prepared for a most rewarding journey. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7Utoxary2Q
Does anyone know of others worth reading watching like Griffin? (I don;t think I'd ever heard of him before BBQ and Flash). BTW Hawk, are you just watching to see what happens with your thread or are you too busy/away?
I loved these Adam Smith quotes from another article I just posted and is relevant to this thread and
