Debate:Killing Politics

This is a Debate page. Feel free to add your own spin on the story. Please keep it civil! This debate was created by KillMyGovernment.

Should the government be minimized so that it only has power over war, police, and fire control (not marriage, not our economy etc). So that we can have laissez faire and more power over ourselves. Also, we can eliminate the problem of ultra-leftists, and ultra-conservatives.

Agree

The government is the biggest threat to our freedom --KillMyGovernment 14:35, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

I actually agree with this statement - up to a point. However, it begs the question of whether freedom is the most important thing in life. A baby may be born free but if it has a poor chance of being able to grow into a healthy, educated adult then freedom isn't worth a shit. The people of the USSR were not free under so-called communism but they had access to education, health-care, a basic diet and protection from petty criminals. When the system was overthrown many were cast into penury, unemployment and hunger, while lawlessness and crime became rife. Freedom's great when you've got a full stomach, a roof over your head and a healthy bank-balance, but for the rest it's a luxury. Genghis^mutating 15:14, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

I agree with it up to a point as well - that's why a functioning democracy is important.--Bob^{bing up} 15:18, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

Laissez-faire works when good men don't monopolize to make a profit and take care of their workers. Unions are there to protect the workers so the government stays out of the jobs.^{— Unsigned, by: Blowupbob / talk / contribs}

• Russia is not free now. It is ever so slightly less unfree than under the USSR, but by no means remotely free. Frostbyte (talk) 09:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Disagree

Are you freakin' kidding me?! We've already tried laissez-faire—remember how well that worked out? --_transResident Transfan^form! 14:40, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

Are you freakin' kidding me?! Are you freaking ignorant of Economics? --KillMyGovernment 14:42, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

Laissez-faire is a self-destructive system which cannot work, pending serious quantum events. --λινυσ^(☮) 14:44, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

Wow, I have been teaching Economics for 10 years, you people at IrrationalWiki, must have never learned a thing about Economics --KillMyGovernment 14:48, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

Wow, I can't believe they've let you teach that line for a decade. Maybe there's something to be said for homeschooling after all. Show us where true laissez-faire has worked...PFoster 14:51, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

Who takes care of the common areas and things used by all? Roads? Parks? Who keeps those with power (in the absence of government, large corporations? people with guns bigger than mine?) from claiming my food, property, mineral rights, etc.. Who pays for the police, fire, and warfare? What happens when you are between jobs and get sick? Who keeps the medicine from being poison imported from China? Laissez-faire is remarkably short sighted (even shorter than the current administration) in maximizing *your* profits, because if you don't chop down every tree in the Sierras, someone else will (who cares about 40 years from now). --Shagie 14:58, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

Er, whether laissed-faire has "worked" or not rather depends on what you wanted the outcome to be. (Also, come on people format your reponses properly so that they can be followed.) Genghis^mutating 14:56, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

Hong Kong is ranked number one for 14 consecutive years in the Index which attempts to measure "the absence of government coercion or constraint on the production, distribution, or consumption of goods and services beyond the extent necessary for citizens to protect and maintain liberty itself." Because of this, Milton Friedman described Hong Kong as laissez-faire state and he credits that policy for the rapid move from poverty to prosperity in 50 years.--KillMyGovernment 14:59, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

"Prosperity" - how well is it distributed? What happens to the people who are the wrong colour and gender to take advantage of that prosperity? What about the plain unlucky? Liberterianism is old and boring and selfish - and you'll notice there's not a lot of poor folks, women or non-white-guys working at the Cato Institute. PFoster 15:02, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

Hong Kong is 10x larger than San Francisco both in population and land area. About the same size as the San Francisco Bay Area in population and land. Go beyond the large city size deal with natural resources (who gets what, what prevents a large corporation from throwing me out for the hypothetical oil under my feet), or a standing military (Neither Hong Kong nor San Francisco have a standing military). With few resources, Hong Kong doesn't have any framers or anything to make sure that a drought doesn't make everyone who was a farmer leave the profession. Nor does Hong Kong have to do anything about water projects for irrigating farmland. Nor is there any concern with maintaining wilderness areas - Yosemite, Yellowstone, Grand Teton, Grand Canyon, Glacier, etc... Laisse-faire has little concern with maintaining areas for the common good. The tragedy of the commons has three solutions - privatization, polluter pays, and regulation. Privatization doesn't work well for areas of wilderness (well, it does, but it prevents people from enjoying them). Polluter pays and regulation are inherently part of government - and more than military, fire, and police. --Shagie 15:45, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

Why do all economists teach laissez faire economics, if it is wrong. If you honestly think laissez faire economics does not work you are suffering from a severe case of denial. You are nothing but small men versus the Economists (are you that dumb), studies show there is a positive correlation with wealth and laissez faire --KillMyGovernment 15:04, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

People teach lots of things that don't work - like state capitalist communist economics. And you didn't respond to my comment - how does laissez-faire guarantee that race/gender/sexual orientation/etc. won't be an obstacle to economic prosperity 9as they always have).PFoster 15:08, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

I'm happy to report than Forbes Magazine recently ranked Denmark as the best country to do business in. Our population is also the happiest in the world, and we enjoy one of the least corrupt and most stable political systems. All this with a considerable level of government intervention in the economy. It would seem that while there's certainly still room for improvement, we're basically doing it right. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 15:12, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

Two most interesting links.--Bob^{bing up} 15:24, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

Smug git. :) Genghis^mutating

Write about what you know, as they say... --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 15:18, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

Denmark is probably doing it mostly right. The essence of a successful government/economy is surely that most of the people are mostly happy most of the time. The US system seems to be that those with the most are happy while the underclass do their utmost to pursue happiness. Denmark may be at the top of the happiness pile but a large majority of western Europe are quite happy where they are rather than emigrating. Genghis^mutating 15:28, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

"we can eliminate the problem of ultra-leftists, and ultra-conservatives."

So the weak go to the wall? If you can't pay for medicine you die? And exactly how do you go about this bit: Also, we can eliminate the problem of ultra-leftists, and ultra-conservatives. What happens to these people?--Bob^{bing up} 14:53, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

Also, we can eliminate the problem of ultra-leftists..yeah - where do I go? PFoster 14:55, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

Perhaps a "re-education" camp?--Bob^{bing up} 15:15, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

Don't worry. A few years of hard labour in the (privatized) quote mines will bring you all around. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 15:17, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

It's a shame our new user hasn't responded on this one. I'd really have been interested in his explanation.--Bob^{bing up} 16:59, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

If politicians would do what's best for their state and not for the President or their pocket there wouldn't be liberals or conservatives; there would be a government for the people, of the people, and by the people.^{— Unsigned, by: Blowupbob / talk / contribs}

Yes

As a strong believer in world peace, I truly believe that the USA should try laissez faire. It would result in the rapid decline of the country and the removal of it from world affairs, which could only be for the general good. 82.132.136.210 15:25, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

Except, of course, that it would bring the world economy crashing down with it. Globalization and all that. Personally, I'd frather not see that happen. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 15:28, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

Yes, but apart from that?--Bob^{bing up} 15:33, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

I guess you have a point. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 15:49, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

This, this shall be my new incendiary comment. My profuse gratitude, 82.132.etc. --λινυσ^(☮) 15:59, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

Yawn, yawn

Here we go again with another idiot who skimmed through Ratlas Hugged and "saw the light". It doesn't matter which extreme political system you advocate - the extremes don't work. Whether it's libertarian or communist definition of Utopia it looks good on paper and fails miserably in the real world. There's a very good reason why all the successful countries have a mixed economy - even China is moving that way - it's because it's what works. Political systems, like everything else, are subject to evolutionary pressure and the fittest survives. Jack Hughes (talk) 08:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Personal freedom and Economic freedom

Government should not affect what I do in my own home. Full stop. But it should have control over buisnesses and make sure that the buisnesses are worker run.^{— Unsigned, by: Bazer63 / talk / contribs} 19:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)