A practical theory of Government

[nitro]

So many issues in P&R are really questions about the theory of government. What role did ancient governments play in the founding of the USA? Are some of those purposes antiquated? In particular, what role does taxation play in the functioning of government, and when does it become oppressive? What is the role of laws and tax. Are they the same tool?

Thinking about government is hard because it is hard to think about it from the standpoint of starting from scratch and instituting laws. Or, thinking about an existing government and what its role is within its own structure.

That is the practical and theoretical in the title. My claim is that the role of government, its highest ideal, can be codified in one sentence: To promote Social Justice and to promote optimal freedom, while at the same time reducing the risk of individuals and homogenizing it and transferring risk to the whole society away from the individual. This is probably just a fancy term for the golden rule, but of course if it were just as easy as that, Jesus would have gotten it right 2000 years ago. But notice that in some sense these ideas are in conflict with each other, at least at shallow thought through.

The United States, with a constitution that is almost a programmable document, is the reason why it mostly succeeds. It is reflective. The founders were computer scientists! Written by revolutionaries (and this is key), it encodes in the very document the ability to amend and change itself as the need arises - in the face of a new revolution. It is a living breathing document!

This is one of the best [modern] documents I have ever seen on the subject of taxation:

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/148.Weisbach-Coase_0.pdf

 

[nitro]

BTW, the golden rule is wrong. It is not, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Instead it is:

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, were you in their shoes.

 

[Piptaker]

Well my belief is government authority has no legitimacy in the first place

 

[gwb-trading]

So many issues in P&R are really questions about the theory of government. What role did ancient governments play in the founding of the USA? Are some of those purposes antiquated? In particular, what role does taxation play in the functioning of government, and when does it become oppressive? What is the role of laws and tax. Are they the same tool?

Thinking about government is hard because it is hard to think about it from the standpoint of starting from scratch and instituting laws. Or, thinking about an existing government and what its role is within its own structure.

That is the practical and theoretical in the title. My claim is that the role of government, its highest ideal, can be codified in one sentence: To promote Social Justice and to promote optimal freedom, while at the same time reducing the risk of individuals and homogenizing it and transferring risk to the whole society away from the individual. This is probably just a fancy term for the golden rule, but of course if it were just as easy as that, Jesus would have gotten it right 2000 years ago. But notice that in some sense these ideas are in conflict with each other, at least at shallow thought through.

The United States, with a constitution that is almost a programmable document, is the reason why it mostly succeeds. It is reflective. The founders were computer scientists! Written by revolutionaries (and this is key), it encodes in the very document the ability to amend and change itself as the need arises - in the face of a new revolution. It is a living breathing document!

This is one of the best [modern] documents I have ever seen on the subject of taxation:

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/148.Weisbach-Coase_0.pdf

While I disagree on your premise on the role of government -- this thread (assuming everyone stays civil) is an interesting topic to discuss. More later when I have some time.

 

[CaptainObvious]

The role of government is not to promote anything. The role is to make sure all laws are enforced equally. They fail miserably. The role is to be of service to the public. They fail miserably. The role is to maintain infrastructure. They fail miserably. The role is to provide a safety net for the less fortunate among us. They fail miserably. The role is to maintain a military for the national defense. They fail miserably. All failures are due to criminal corruption, gross negligence, utterly astounding incompetence and just plain old stupidity

 

[Ricter]

The role of government is not to promote anything. The role is to make sure all laws are enforced equally. They fail miserably. The role is to be of service to the public. They fail miserably. The role is to maintain infrastructure. They fail miserably. The role is to provide a safety net for the less fortunate among us. They fail miserably. The role is to maintain a military for the national defense. They fail miserably. All failures are due to criminal corruption, gross negligence, utterly astounding incompetence and just plain old stupidity

So which country is getting it right?

 

[nitro]

The role of government is not to promote anything. The role is to make sure all laws are enforced equally. They fail miserably. The role is to be of service to the public. They fail miserably. The role is to maintain infrastructure. They fail miserably. The role is to provide a safety net for the less fortunate among us. They fail miserably. The role is to maintain a military for the national defense. They fail miserably. All failures are due to criminal corruption, gross negligence, utterly astounding incompetence and just plain old stupidity

Every single thing you claim is a role, can be mapped to my statement in bold above. Apply your statements, one-by-one and see if you can find it in my statement. It is just stated in philosophical form. Three simple concepts:

• Social Justice
• Optimal Freedom
• Spread of risk away from the individual

Now, would a constitution ever be stated in such form? No not really because one thing a government needs in order to function are almost computer precise type laws so they can be applied in a just manner.

On the other hand, read the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. It is very much stated in this philosophical form, and I claim it is the Declaration that inspires people - not the Constitution. The Constitution are the details of a much deeper philosophy.

 

[nitro]

"What I want to know is - what pricinples did GOD use create the Universe. Did he have a choice? I am not interested in this or that detail. I want to know his thoughts" - Albert Einstein

 

[CyJackX]

I think a fair government is something that comes about naturally when a large body of people says,
"Hey! We have a lot of complicated issues that are too energy consuming and complicated for all of us to be able to manage by ourselves. Most of us have jobs and families and other things we'd rather worry about. We should designate a group of people who manage these things for us full time. And I guess we should all chip in together to pay them, because that's fair."

"To promote Social Justice and to promote optimal freedom, while at the same time reducing the risk of individuals and homogenizing it and transferring risk to the whole society away from the individual."
Transferring risk to society away from the individual is essentially socializing risk, which I think is important. Fire Departments, Police departments, military are all paid for thru taxes. Personally, I think healthcare should be socialized, as well.

"Social Justice" and "Optimal Freedom," however, are quite vague. You'd have to really define both of those. I'd say most of modern law is based around defining those exact things. Sure, freedom to do whatever you want except harm another person or their property. But what counts as "harm," especially once you start adding in financial elements?