Functions of a Government

[Informed Consent]

I adhere to Adam Smith's theory, government should not interfere in economic relations

The line between production and regulation can get extremely fine at times.
I do not mind the government regulating my food and medicine, for example, but as far as producing and distributing, no.
I want that based upon a fully objective market.
Not political expediency.
I believe Smith made that distinction at some point in his work, but do not quote me.

[Dimetrodon Empire]

If the government can do it better, then I think they should be allowed to do it.

[Worldly Philosophers]

How the fuck does it decrease the quality of food?

because stopping corpos from putting formaldehyde and/or radium into food is apparently causing a decrease in quality... ersumthing...

mmmmmm... radium...

[Neutraligon]

There are certain places where I think the federal government does a better job than say state governments or private businesses. These tend to do with the protection of the poor including regulation and large scale infrastructure. The federal government should be in charge of our national power grid for example since having it controlled st the state level means new or improved powerlines are ridiculously difficult and expensive to get built.

[Narland]

There are certain places where I think the federal government does a better job than say state governments or private businesses. These tend to do with the protection of the poor including regulation and large scale infrastructure. The federal government should be in charge of our national power grid for example since having it controlled st the state level means new or improved powerlines are ridiculously difficult and expensive to get built.

I must disagree. I think that nationalizing our power grid to yet another centralized cadre of unaccountable bureaucrats is the worst thing that could happen to it. The hybrid corporatism foisted on us for the last 40 years needs to be abolished as well. The utilities need to be returned back to the various public organizations at the interstate, state, county, and municipal public to run as they best see to their own unique and particular geo-political needs. One grid is easier to wreak mischief than +1500 self-sufficient grids ready to supply power to areas that have fubarred themselves.

On that note, the increasing nationalization of the government during the Progressivist era has in general been a failure and we as Americans need to return to having a Federal government. The national government at this time cannot even manage to keep the national emergency resources effectively managed. They cannot balance their own budget. The culture of their bureaucracies think that regulation means control and extinguish as a matter of command economy (not to make open and regular in the pursuit of free enterprise) and most people in the Beltway seem to think they can spend their way into prosperity. Subjecting yet even more or our resources to their moral stupidity is a recipe for disaster.

There are things the Federal government can do better, certainly. Centralized power is not one of them.

[Neutraligon]

There are certain places where I think the federal government does a better job than say state governments or private businesses. These tend to do with the protection of the poor including regulation and large scale infrastructure. The federal government should be in charge of our national power grid for example since having it controlled st the state level means new or improved powerlines are ridiculously difficult and expensive to get built.

Double hockey stick no. Nationalizing our power grid to yet another centralized cadre of unaccountable bureaucrats is the worst thing that could happen to it. The hybrid corporatism foisted on us for the last 40 years needs to be abolished as well. The utilities need to be returned back to the various public organizations at the interstate, state, county, and municipal public to run as they best see to their own unique and particular geo-political needs. One grid is easier to wreak mischief than +1500 self-sufficient grids ready to supply power to areas that have fubarred themselves.

On that note, the increasing nationalization of the government during the Progressivist era has in general been a failure and we as Americans need to return to having a Federal government. The national government at this time cannot even manage to keep the national emergency resources effectively managed. They cannot balance their own budget. The culture of their bureaucracies think that regulation means control and extinguish as a matter of command economy (not to make open and regular in the pursuit of free enterprise) and most people in the Beltway seem to think they can spend their way into prosperity. Subjecting yet even more or our resources to their moral stupidity is a recipe for disaster.

There are things the Federal government can do better, certainly. Centralized power is not one of them.

That would not work, as there are many states that are very very good at power generation, so much so that they have excess. The best thing to do is to get that power to states that are not as good at generating it, but that requires connections across state lines, which are both difficult to do and highly expensive if not centrally controlled. That said, you will not that while I want the ability to build powerlines and the like to be centralized, that does not mean I want the power generation to be centralized. Power generation itself is a state thing, the power lines however, at least the ones needed to cross state lines need some form of uniformity so that it is not so ridiculously expensive to get them up.

[Narland]

Double hockey stick no. Nationalizing our power grid to yet another centralized cadre of unaccountable bureaucrats is the worst thing that could happen to it. The hybrid corporatism foisted on us for the last 40 years needs to be abolished as well. The utilities need to be returned back to the various public organizations at the interstate, state, county, and municipal public to run as they best see to their own unique and particular geo-political needs. One grid is easier to wreak mischief than +1500 self-sufficient grids ready to supply power to areas that have fubarred themselves.

On that note, the increasing nationalization of the government during the Progressivist era has in general been a failure and we as Americans need to return to having a Federal government. The national government at this time cannot even manage to keep the national emergency resources effectively managed. They cannot balance their own budget. The culture of their bureaucracies think that regulation means control and extinguish as a matter of command economy (not to make open and regular in the pursuit of free enterprise) and most people in the Beltway seem to think they can spend their way into prosperity. Subjecting yet even more or our resources to their moral stupidity is a recipe for disaster.

There are things the Federal government can do better, certainly. Centralized power is not one of them.

That would not work, as there are many states that are very very good at power generation, so much so that they have excess. The best thing to do is to get that power to states that are not as good at generating it, but that requires connections across state lines, which are both difficult to do and highly expensive if not centrally controlled. That said, you will not that while I want the ability to build powerlines and the like to be centralized, that does not mean I want the power generation to be centralized. Power generation itself is a state thing, the power lines however, at least the ones needed to cross state lines need some form of uniformity so that it is not so ridiculously expensive to get them up.

I agree to a certain extent. That is what interstate compacts are for, at no additional cost to the taxpayers who are not involved. It keeps the affected utilities honest and efficient, and not dependent on learned helplessness from a constant micromanagement from DC.

[Neutraligon]

That would not work, as there are many states that are very very good at power generation, so much so that they have excess. The best thing to do is to get that power to states that are not as good at generating it, but that requires connections across state lines, which are both difficult to do and highly expensive if not centrally controlled. That said, you will not that while I want the ability to build powerlines and the like to be centralized, that does not mean I want the power generation to be centralized. Power generation itself is a state thing, the power lines however, at least the ones needed to cross state lines need some form of uniformity so that it is not so ridiculously expensive to get them up.

I agree to a certain extent. That is what interstate compacts are for, at no additional cost to the taxpayers who are not involved. It keeps the affected utilities honest and efficient, and not dependent on learned helplessness from a constant micromanagement from DC.

Except they are not working, and are made more difficult since often more than two states are involved. We have states that are producing so much excessive power that they have needed to stop individuals from putting power into the grid because their infrastructure literally cannot deal with it. We have NIMBY as a serious issue for correcting this. States have either been unwilling or unable to deal with this meanwhile our power grid continues to get more and more outdated.

[Narland]

I agree to a certain extent. That is what interstate compacts are for, at no additional cost to the taxpayers who are not involved. It keeps the affected utilities honest and efficient, and not dependent on learned helplessness from a constant micromanagement from DC.

Except they are not working, and are made more difficult since often more than two states are involved. We have states that are producing so much excessive power that they have needed to stop individuals from putting power into the grid because their infrastructure literally cannot deal with it. We have NIMBY as a serious issue for correcting this. States have either been unwilling or unable to deal with this meanwhile our power grid continues to get more and more outdated.

There seems to be a direct correlation between state (European sense) interference in public function of power utilities run by the public (such as the atrocious mismanagement of the State of California that has usurped the ability of the public to generate their own power). They do work when the state (again European sense) gets out of the way and lets the people see to their own needs at the most feasible geo-political level. They fail when these lawful functions are unnecessarily interfered with as has been happening incessantly for the last 40 years by Federal agencies (acting as nationalized agencies instead of Constitutional public services) and some States (American sense).

Re: Nimby. I live in a state that still has opportunities for expanding with geothermal, hydroelectric, and nuclear power. There is no reason to uglify the earth with environmentally unfriendly wind generators and solar panels. They would kill our bald eagles and the upkeep in the panels would require the return to strip mining in order to become a country wide self-sustaining power source).

[Harry Islands]

1. State with a powerless parliament
2. High funding for police and army.
3. Respected individual freedoms, legal abortion, legal marijuana, freedom of expression.
4. Completely private industry, with state intervention in the alcohol and marijuana sector.
5. Government to prioritize income support for poor people, in addition to free housing, health care and education provided by the government.

[Kalivyah]

1. State with a powerless parliament
2. High funding for police and army.
3. Respected individual freedoms, legal abortion, legal marijuana, freedom of expression.
4. Completely private industry, with state intervention in the alcohol and marijuana sector.
5. Government to prioritize income support for poor people, in addition to free housing, health care and education provided by the government.

We should regulate NOTHING but the drugs and alcohol section. So true my friend!

[Harry Islands]

1. State with a powerless parliament
2. High funding for police and army.
3. Respected individual freedoms, legal abortion, legal marijuana, freedom of expression.
4. Completely private industry, with state intervention in the alcohol and marijuana sector.
5. Government to prioritize income support for poor people, in addition to free housing, health care and education provided by the government.

We should regulate NOTHING but the drugs and alcohol section. So true my friend!

I didn't write that only drugs and alcohol would be regulated, by "state intervention" I meant about limits on consumption, and even, the state as a minority shareholder in these sectors.

[San Lumen]

1. State with a powerless parliament
2. High funding for police and army.
3. Respected individual freedoms, legal abortion, legal marijuana, freedom of expression.
4. Completely private industry, with state intervention in the alcohol and marijuana sector.
5. Government to prioritize income support for poor people, in addition to free housing, health care and education provided by the government.

What is the point of having a legislature if it cannot do anything?

[Neutraligon]

Except they are not working, and are made more difficult since often more than two states are involved. We have states that are producing so much excessive power that they have needed to stop individuals from putting power into the grid because their infrastructure literally cannot deal with it. We have NIMBY as a serious issue for correcting this. States have either been unwilling or unable to deal with this meanwhile our power grid continues to get more and more outdated.

There seems to be a direct correlation between state (European sense) interference in public function of power utilities run by the public (such as the atrocious mismanagement of the State of California that has usurped the ability of the public to generate their own power). They do work when the state (again European sense) gets out of the way and lets the people see to their own needs at the most feasible geo-political level. They fail when these lawful functions are unnecessarily interfered with as has been happening incessantly for the last 40 years by Federal agencies (acting as nationalized agencies instead of Constitutional public services) and some States (American sense).

Re: Nimby. I live in a state that still has opportunities for expanding with geothermal, hydroelectric, and nuclear power. There is no reason to uglify the earth with environmentally unfriendly wind generators and solar panels. They would kill our bald eagles and the upkeep in the panels would require the return to strip mining in order to become a country wide self-sustaining power source).

THere also seems to be a correlation between corporations/state (US version) and failing to maintain electrical infrastructure. Look at Texas and that lovely snowstorm. Look at the US and our failing infrastrucutre...which is state (US state) controlled.

[Kalivyah]

We should regulate NOTHING but the drugs and alcohol section. So true my friend!

I didn't write that only drugs and alcohol would be regulated, by "state intervention" I meant about limits on consumption, and even, the state as a minority shareholder in these sectors.

My apologies good sir. We should regulate absolutely NOTHING!

[Kalivyah]

1. State with a powerless parliament
2. High funding for police and army.
3. Respected individual freedoms, legal abortion, legal marijuana, freedom of expression.
4. Completely private industry, with state intervention in the alcohol and marijuana sector.
5. Government to prioritize income support for poor people, in addition to free housing, health care and education provided by the government.

What is the point of having a legislature if it cannot do anything?

The corporations do all the law stuff, so simple! This is definitely not undemocratic.

[Harry Islands]

1. State with a powerless parliament
2. High funding for police and army.
3. Respected individual freedoms, legal abortion, legal marijuana, freedom of expression.
4. Completely private industry, with state intervention in the alcohol and marijuana sector.
5. Government to prioritize income support for poor people, in addition to free housing, health care and education provided by the government.

What is the point of having a legislature if it cannot do anything?

People should have the right to be represented, but the democratic process gets in the way of decision-making, so this would serve as a means for them to be represented without power.

[Harry Islands]

I didn't write that only drugs and alcohol would be regulated, by "state intervention" I meant about limits on consumption, and even, the state as a minority shareholder in these sectors.

My apologies good sir. We should regulate absolutely NOTHING!

Totally wrong, regulations and laws are completely necessary, otherwise everyone will do whatever they want.

[San Lumen]

What is the point of having a legislature if it cannot do anything?

People should have the right to be represented, but the democratic process gets in the way of decision-making, so this would serve as a means for them to be represented without power.

What’s the point of representation if you can’t do anything once elected?

[Harry Islands]

People should have the right to be represented, but the democratic process gets in the way of decision-making, so this would serve as a means for them to be represented without power.

What’s the point of representation if you can’t do anything once elected?

The President has to be lucky to have a majority in parliament, so I think the same question can be asked for countries that give power to their parliament.

[San Lumen]

What’s the point of representation if you can’t do anything once elected?

The President has to be lucky to have a majority in parliament, so I think the same question can be asked for countries that give power to their parliament.

I don't understand. You said the legislature has no power so why would it matter if the president is of the same party?

[Harry Islands]

The President has to be lucky to have a majority in parliament, so I think the same question can be asked for countries that give power to their parliament.

I don't understand. You said the legislature has no power so why would it matter if the president is of the same party?

I think you really misunderstood, I simply questioned that in a system that gives power to parliament, the President can be both helped and hurt by simply not having a majority in Parliament.

[Sordhau]

1. State with a powerless parliament
2. High funding for police and army.
3. Respected individual freedoms, legal abortion, legal marijuana, freedom of expression.
4. Completely private industry, with state intervention in the alcohol and marijuana sector.
5. Government to prioritize income support for poor people, in addition to free housing, health care and education provided by the government.

You lost me at points 1-2, had me at point 3, then lost me again point 4, then had me again at point 5.

Unfortunately that's 3 bad points to 2 good ones.

Three strikes, you're out!

[Worldly Philosophers]

What is the point of having a legislature if it cannot do anything?

People should have the right to be represented, but the democratic process gets in the way of decision-making, so this would serve as a means for them to be represented without power.

This was actually the status that the American colonies had in Parliament prior to the whole revolution thing.

I wonder if you can guess what conclusion they came to...

[Picairn]

What is the point of having a legislature if it cannot do anything?

People should have the right to be represented, but the democratic process gets in the way of decision-making, so this would serve as a means for them to be represented without power.

The concentration of all power in the hands of the executive branch will not lead to anything wrong. *nods*