Government effectiveness

[Cartman]

Governments are frequently considered socialist, communist and even oppresive in nature because they forcefully redistribute incomes; sometimes from the affluent to the needy. These revenues are expected to used be used for "society" because individuals will simply not solve social problems on their own. The suggestion is that individuals do not know best how to spend their own money. Indeed, American Rebublicans and, to a lesser extent, even Canadian Conservatives have run on a platform of lower taxes and consequently lower expenditures for common problems affecting the common good. The NDP has advocated relatively higher taxes and higher expenditures. The Liberals are always somewhere in between.

Katrina has demonstrated that socialist governments are needed due to their ability to collect taxes. The reality is that individuals have not saved and organized in order to to deal with such events even though they are not unexpected. Wal-Mart may help in the reconstruction of NO, but even they cannot rebuild it without the incorporation of state taxes as are advocated by so-called socialist governments taking your money.

[August1991]

Cartman, IMV, you have raised two good issues. I'll take the second one first:

Katrina has demonstrated that socialist governments are needed due to their ability to collect taxes. The reality is that individuals have not saved and organized in order to to deal with such events even though they are not unexpected.

If the government helps people who, as you note, did not prepare for an expected event, I don't think much good will be accomplished. (Frankly, I'm inclined to believe the same even if the event is unexpected... )

Think about it.

Imagine I build my house on a cliffside and when it falls into the ocean, the government builds me a new one (in a safer place). An acquaintance sees this and decides to build a cliffside house too. The land is cheap, the view is good and if it falls into the ocean, the government will build him a new house.

I don't know how many people would be influenced by this chain of events, and I don't know what constitutes building a house in a risky place, but I see no long term good that can come from the government replacing lost houses.

Let's be honest. When people hear that drugs exist to deal with AIDS, they are more inclined to engage in unsafe sex.

Should a government encourage stupidity? If a system of government does that, will it survive for many centuries?

----

Now your other point:

Governments are frequently considered socialist, communist and even oppresive in nature because they forcefully redistribute incomes; sometimes from the affluent to the needy. These revenues are expected to used be used for "society" because individuals will simply not solve social problems on their own. The suggestion is that individuals do not know best how to spend their own money.

I don't think the suggestion is that individuals do not know how best to spend their own money. I think the problem is that they don't have any money, and they have no means to get any.

Efforts to redistribute incomes are really efforts to deal with the unfairness of birth. Some people are born beautiful, and some ugly. I don't know if any redistribution of income will ever compensate for that unfairness. But I think a civilized society should make some efforts. We all pay to build buildings so that a few people in wheelchairs can have access.

This unfairness of birth has another angle though, which I think strongly argues for taking from the rich and giving to the poor.

The children of poor parents had no choice in the matter, and nor did the children of rich parents. The status of our parents is pure chance. We get the family we happen to get. Some children get rich parents, other children get poor parents.

Here's the question: Before your birth, before you knew who your parents would be, would you have agreed to share your good luck of rich parents with someone born to poor parents? Keep in mind, you could have been born to poor parents. IOW, the question concerns what insurance would you have bought - pre-birth.

There's more.

Most people want their children, nephews, nieces to have a good life in the future. A future good life depends on all the ideas people will discover in the future. How many people like Issac Newton have been born into poor families and we have never heard of them?

----

Incidentally, I think we debated some of these issues here. (True, there were various thread high-jackings.)

[Renegade]

Katrina has demonstrated that socialist governments are needed due to their ability to collect taxes. The reality is that individuals have not saved and organized in order to to deal with such events even though they are not unexpected.

It doesn't really demonstrate that a socialist govenment is necessary. Even a facist government would have mobilized to build the infrastructure necessary to prepare for such an event and then recover from it. What it does demonstrate is that in times of emergencies a strong authority with power to act is the most effective way to mobilize resources in an emergency.

[Cartman]

If the government helps people who, as you note, did not prepare for an expected event, I don't think much good will be accomplished. (Frankly, I'm inclined to believe the same even if the event is unexpected... )

You make a good point about people being short sighted at times (the house). But this is not just about being short sighted or even about being unable to prepare for such events. After all, the relief effort is ultimately paid for by long-term taxes anyways.

People simply do not always act in their own best interests. They are not simply rational, economic actors. In fact, some people (rich or poor) will do just the opposite and find the money for tobacco, alcohol and other harmful drugs despite constant warnings and full knowledge of their ill effects. I am not sure everyone has the same capacity/imagination for acting in their own long-term interests and this is partly why government is generally effective (and comes with its own unique costs).

It doesn't really demonstrate that a socialist govenment is necessary.

I was defining government as a form of socialism not like say Marx or Fourier etc.

[August1991]

Katrina has demonstrated that socialist governments are needed due to their ability to collect taxes. The reality is that individuals have not saved and organized in order to to deal with such events even though they are not unexpected.

It doesn't really demonstrate that a socialist govenment is necessary. Even a facist government would have mobilized to build the infrastructure necessary to prepare for such an event and then recover from it. What it does demonstrate is that in times of emergencies a strong authority with power to act is the most effective way to mobilize resources in an emergency.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think frankly that Katrina has demonstrated clearly - to many, many people - don't trust governments. As Toro wrote, the new slogan is: "Put an axe in your attic."

After New Orleans, arguing we need more government is like arguing, after the Titanic, that we needed bigger boats.

People are not fools, and Canadians - both English and French - are notoriously risk averse. Most Canadians ask much of government but at the same time, I suspect taking no chances, organize their own affairs their own way. That makes sense, and to use the phrase, it is very rational.

After all, the relief effort is ultimately paid for by long-term taxes anyways.

This time, yes. But the horrific stories, and slow response suggest that future relief efforts will be less costly.

People simply do not always act in their own best interests.  They are not simply rational, economic actors. In fact, some people (rich or poor) will do just the opposite and find the money for tobacco, alcohol and other harmful drugs despite constant warnings and full knowledge of their ill effects. I am not sure everyone has the same capacity/imagination for acting in their own long-term interests and this is partly why government is generally effective (and comes with its own unique costs).

This argument deserves a thread to itself, Cartman. (I notice BlackDog made a similar argument on another thread.)

In my experience, heroin addicts know exactly where and how to get what they need. But I'll accept your point, provisionally, and note addicts are examples of pathological behaviour. The Left will go nowhere if it justifies its ideas with such marginal examples.

There is ample reason to believe that rational actors lead to irrational group behaviour, justifying the need for governemnt, without appeal to drugs or casinos.

----

IMV, the Left must decide why governments exist and what they can do. The Marxist refrain of the imminent collapse of capitalism because of its internal contradictions is akin to the Flat Earth Society. The earth is not flat, but that doesn't mean it is easy to cross the Atlantic Ocean. Canada's Left still doesn't get that.

[Cartman]

I think frankly that Katrina has demonstrated clearly - to many, many people - don't trust governments.

I think that much of the anger at the authorities demonstrates that they were angry at the slow response of the government, not that they want government to refrain from emergency reponse in the future.

This time, yes. But the horrific stories, and slow response suggest that future relief efforts will be less costly.

Unclear. Are you saying the government will spend less or that people will now begin preparing for disasters on their own?

IMV, the Left must decide why governments exist and what they can do.

Point taken if only for the moment. I need to give this more thought than a knee jerk reaction.

I think that Marx's law of accumulation has been found incorrect.

_______

I believe that Katrina is going to hurt the Republicans come next election. Part of the reason that Bush sr was not re-elected was the less than perfect response to hurricane Hugo and it was nothing like this.

[feloniusteabag]

Dear August1991,

IMV, the Left must decide why governments exist and what they can do.

Without taxes, (and gov't) capitalism is ill-equipped to take care of the 'common good' in cases such as devastating hurricanes. (Not that the gov't was any more prepared...) Profiteers would have been able to ride around New Orleans on sea-doos with signs saying "$20 rides to safety!" In fact, economics would dictate the price, for the demand high, supply low, and the cost would (or could be) exhorbitant.

Gov't is supposed to put 'the common good' in the forefront.

[Guest eureka]

I would suggest that "The Left," in general. articulates its ideas of why government exists than does the Right. The Right seems to have no more than the limited idea that Government must be minimal where the Left says what it thinks Goverment should be and do.

Both, of course, at their extremes, want an end to government.

[Cartman]

Profiteers would have been able to ride around New Orleans on sea-doos with signs saying "$20 rides to safety!" In fact, economics would dictate the price, for the demand high, supply low, and the cost would (or could be) exhorbitant.

Interesting because CNN reported that some people were initially refusing offers for rescue because they thought they may be charged for the helicopter ride.

[feloniusteabag]

Dear Cartman,

Interesting because CNN reported that some people were initially refusing offers for rescue because they thought they may be charged for the helicopter ride

This was probably due to the fact that ambulances charge you, and there would have been no mechanism to alert the people to the fact that this particular ride was free.

Would capitalism be better able to facilitate the needs of the general populace in all instances? I say no. Laissez-faire can work in only most cases, but for true necessity, gov't is crucial. As even Hugo admitted, while Anarchy (Libertarian-style) is to him most desirable, mankind isn't ready for it.