Functions of a Government

[Nilokeras]

A long time ago i lived in china for half a year. i ate a wide variety of very delicious and affordable street food nearly everyday and didn't get food poisoning once.

'I played one round of Russian roulette and I'm just fine. It's clearly not dangerous!'

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

A long time ago i lived in china for half a year. i ate a wide variety of very delicious and affordable street food nearly everyday and didn't get food poisoning once.

'I played one round of Russian roulette and I'm just fine. It's clearly not dangerous!'

meanwhile my dad who goes to prc for business gets massive migraines from just sipping chinese beer, and the only brand in-country he will tolerate is Qingdao. He has no problems with alcohol otherwise.
what "conclusions" do we draw from this?

[The Black Forrest]

'I played one round of Russian roulette and I'm just fine. It's clearly not dangerous!'

meanwhile my dad who goes to prc for business gets massive migraines from just sipping chinese beer, and the only brand in-country he will tolerate is Qingdao. He has no problems with alcohol otherwise.
what "conclusions" do we draw from this?

He drinks much more then he says he does?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

meanwhile my dad who goes to prc for business gets massive migraines from just sipping chinese beer, and the only brand in-country he will tolerate is Qingdao. He has no problems with alcohol otherwise.
what "conclusions" do we draw from this?

He drinks much more then he says he does?

he doesnt
insufficiently regulated chinese beer just have undiluted pesticides and other pollutants in them because cost-cutting

[Sonakion]

This is a perfect recipe for a failed state - PMCs running around killing each other for their masters' will.

Nah, if it gets too heated the army (actual, not a PMC) would step in to restore the peace. I wouldn't abolish that part of the government.

Even with government regulation such a system would heavily favour the rich or powerful rather than the common man. While I get what you mean by the police having a monopoly on justice letting the free market sort it out will only cause an even more corruption law enforcement situation.

[Emotional Support Crocodile]

regulation has 3 main results

1. decrease the variety and quality of food

How the fuck does it decrease the quality of food?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

regulation has 3 main results

1. decrease the variety and quality of food

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...

[Risottia]

What, in your ideal state, would the government do? I'll start with mine.

Military to defend against outside violence;
Police to defend against inside violence;
Civil Courts to defend against fraud and enforce freely entered-into contracts

Beyond that, no coercive functions. .

Ok.
How do you suppose your government would pay for the military, the police, and the enforcement of private contracts? So you need to have some sort of tax agency at the very least. With the power to enforce STATE-SANCTIONED PROPERTY THEFT.

You big-gov't nanny-staters are all the same.

[Risottia]

regulation has 3 main results

1. decrease the variety and quality of food

How the fuck does it decrease the quality of food?

Don't you love the taste of E.Coli in the morning coffee?

[Informed Consent]

Nah, if it gets too heated the army (actual, not a PMC) would step in to restore the peace. I wouldn't abolish that part of the government.

Even with government regulation such a system would heavily favour the rich or powerful rather than the common man. While I get what you mean by the police having a monopoly on justice letting the free market sort it out will only cause an even more corruption law enforcement situation.

Constituent parts tend to take on the character of their domain.
A corrupt private security force is indicative of a corrupt business.
A corrupt public security force is indicative of a corrupt government.
A market should not be ideological, and like any i/o device, it operates on the principle of "garbage in, garbage out".
For a market to behave rationally, it must be fed forensically factual input.
Steering it politically, one way or another, steers it into one of the ditches on either side of the road.
That is why authoritarians hate free markets.
If your ideological premises are intellectually dishonest, an open market with a full feedback loop will prove it out regardless of how clever your advertising campaign is.

However, there are times we must act irrationally in respect to the profit motive.
Government does serve a purpose beyond just establishing and maintaining order, and politics is primarily an emotionally subjective business.
To properly reconcile that with those agencies and industries that must be forensically objective, we hold them to the same third party standard of legality.
Although, it does little good to hold different kinds of people under a universal legal standard if the plaintiffs and the judiciary are themselves not held to the same standard of trade.
A public and private sector must be held to the same standard of zero sum accounting as well.
There will never be a truly just society as free from tyranny as humanly possible until this is done.

[Sordhau]

To prevent rampant abuse of this system currency, class, and private property will also have to be abolished (surprise, it's Communism!) lest the market, hierarchy, or privilege be used to the advantage of villains seeking to subvert the system and establish tyranny or inequality.

Oh hell naw.

And your problem with abolishing private property is...?

[Elwher]

What, in your ideal state, would the government do? I'll start with mine.

Military to defend against outside violence;

Sure.

Civil Courts to defend against fraud and enforce freely entered-into contracts

Yes, but there must be an actual contract (physical or digital) to enforce, not some sneaky EULA or "implied" agreement. No contract, no case.

An EULA is an actual contract, one either agrees to it or refrains from using the product. I fully agree with the implied agreement part, however

Police to defend against inside violence;

Oh hell naw.

What do you propose in its place? Vigilante justice has problems at least as great as a police/criminal court system.

[HISPIDA]

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...

i assure you that toxoplasmosis in the cup noodle supply is imperative for a growing stomach

[Kalivyah]

Late 1920's China is in fact not a model to emulate here, ppl...

This is nonsense. 1920s China was a perfectly stable and fine system that led to prosperity for all peoples. Anyways, glory to Shun Yan, glorious provincial leader of Kunyang province!

[HISPIDA]

Late 1920's China is in fact not a model to emulate here, ppl...

This is nonsense. 1920s China was a perfectly stable and fine system that led to prosperity for all peoples. Anyways, glory to Shun Yan, glorious provincial leader of Kunyang province!

traitor! defilier! debraser! long live lu rongting, glorious head of the old guangxi clique!

[Xerographica]

regulation has 3 main results

1. decrease the variety and quality of food

How the fuck does it decrease the quality of food?

Barriers to entry decrease competition, which lowers the average quality of food.

[Emotional Support Crocodile]

How the fuck does it decrease the quality of food?

Barriers to entry decrease competition, which lowers the average quality of food.

Keeping sub standard producers out of the market, stops them undercutting better producers and driving quality down.

[The Black Forrest]

How the fuck does it decrease the quality of food?

Barriers to entry decrease competition, which lowers the average quality of food.

If they are giving out food poisoning, it’s a good thing they are denied.

[Torisakia]

None. The only good government is no government at all.

[Zerotaxia]

Even with government regulation such a system would heavily favour the rich or powerful rather than the common man. While I get what you mean by the police having a monopoly on justice letting the free market sort it out will only cause an even more corruption law enforcement situation.

1. No one should be forced to pay for a service they don't want to use.
2. Police directly contribute to and perpetuate the underlined inequality problem, through enforcing statutes borne of a desire by the Haves (rich & powerful) to impose their social order on the Have-Nots (impoverished working class) and keep them indebted and indentured. Laws that criminalize e.g. drug possession, public drinking, vagrancy are a perfect example; they disproportionately ensnare poor people and minorities to feed into the prison industrial complex. Whatever the lawmakers' original intent, there's no getting around that these laws have been used by the state to systematically railroad and oppress the masses at the behest of the wealthy. Therefore, dismantling the system is the way to go.
3. Police have no legal duty to serve and protect the people; in fact they're often less, not more, inclined to help you if you're not rich or powerful.

And your problem with abolishing private property is...?

Not everyone would willingly consent to relinquishing their property. So the government is now in a position where it'd have to: a) backtrack on its statement; or b) employ coercive measures (like police) to gain compliance. And b) is completely antithetical to my idea of absolute individual and economic liberty.

What do you propose in its place? Vigilante justice has problems at least as great as a police/criminal court system.

A free market solution. Abolish the state monopoly on force; legalize mercenaries and private armies.

None. The only good government is no government at all.

At the very least you'd need a military. Otherwise another country could invade you and impose its own government.

[Duvniask]

And your problem with abolishing private property is...?

Not everyone would willingly consent to relinquishing their property. So the government is now in a position where it'd have to: a) backtrack on its statement; or b) employ coercive measures (like police) to gain compliance. And b) is completely antithetical to my idea of absolute individual and economic liberty

Property, in all its forms, exists through force. Its exclusionary character demands it. Making its de jure existence a de facto one necessitates it.

[Sordhau]

Not everyone would willingly consent to relinquishing their property. So the government is now in a position where it'd have to: a) backtrack on its statement; or b) employ coercive measures (like police) to gain compliance. And b) is completely antithetical to my idea of absolute individual and economic liberty.

I'm not sure you understand what the abolition of private property means. Private land ownership is a relic of the Feudal Era; it's very nature is illiberal in that it restricts land access and usage to land owners, which is not only wasteful be also illiberal in that it allows individuals to set themselves up as micro-despots, giving them privilege over others. As the goal of Communism is to eliminate inequality, hierarchy, and class this means private land ownership must be abolished in favor of communal land ownership. This doesn't mean the government is going to force you out of your house. The opposite, in fact: it means the government *can't* force you out of your house because there is no legal mechanism by which ownership of the house can be transferred from you, the individual, to the government against your will. With the absence of the state they can't force you out under threat of violence, either.

[Duvniask]

Not everyone would willingly consent to relinquishing their property. So the government is now in a position where it'd have to: a) backtrack on its statement; or b) employ coercive measures (like police) to gain compliance. And b) is completely antithetical to my idea of absolute individual and economic liberty.

I'm not sure you understand what the abolition of private property means. Private land ownership is a relic of the Feudal Era; it's very nature is illiberal in that it restricts land access and usage to land owners, which is not only wasteful be also illiberal in that it allows individuals to set themselves up as micro-despots, giving them privilege over others.

A relic of the feudal era? As opposed to the pre-feudal era, where land was... also owned privately? Or our current, capitalist, epoch, where land continues to be privately owned?

As the goal of Communism is to eliminate inequality, hierarchy, and class this means private land ownership must be abolished in favor of communal land ownership.

""The elimination of all social and political inequality," rather than "the abolition of all class distinctions," is similarly a most dubious expression. As between one country, one province and even one place and another, living conditions will always evince a certain inequality which may be reduced to a minimum but never wholly eliminated. The living conditions of Alpine dwellers will always be different from those of the plainsmen. The concept of a socialist society as a realm of equality is a one-sided French concept deriving from the old “liberty, equality, fraternity,” a concept which was justified in that, in its own time and place, it signified a phase of development, but which, like all the one-sided ideas of earlier socialist schools, ought now to be superseded, since they produce nothing but mental confusion, and more accurate ways of presenting the matter have been discovered." —Engels to August Bebel, 1875.

The demand for equality, which has been repeated across almost the entire political spectrum, is quite the red herring. Whenever one speaks of "equality", it is generally an empty term unless it is more closely specified.

As for hierarchy, I don't know where one would get this notion other than from anarchists and their incessant complaining about the fact that there is differentiation of human beings, including in their responsibilities.

This doesn't mean the government is going to force you out of your house. The opposite, in fact: it means the government *can't* force you out of your house because there is no legal mechanism by which ownership of the house can be transferred from you, the individual, to the government against your will. With the absence of the state they can't force you out under threat of violence, either.

If there is communal land ownership, then the plot of a house belongs not to the individual, but to "the community". And speaking of "ownership" implies all the legal conundrums of who has the right to decide how the land is used. Assuming some sort of localist democracy, this means people could theoretically be forced from their homes if a voting majority came out in favor.

[Kashidy]

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

[Dimetrodon Empire]

He drinks much more then he says he does?

he doesnt
insufficiently regulated chinese beer just have undiluted pesticides and other pollutants in them because cost-cutting

Reminds me of the poisoned baby food in China.

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

Even Adam Smith made exceptions to this.