Are people good or bad?

[MyndFyre]

The other book that examines a perfect government is The Prince, by Machievelli.  I really don't remember what he said about it, thought, so you'd have to look it up. 

LOL, The Prince HARDLY examines "perfect government," but rather a perfect exploiter.

Same thing, really.  Somebody who can control people makes the best ruler

Best ruler != perfect government unless you're communist.  Wait, you're from Canada, so eh? 

Best government =IMO= least intrusive.

[iago]

Best government =IMO= least intrusive.

What's the difference between a totall (100%) intrusive government (which sounds like your ideal government) and anarchy?

[rabbit]

This was discussed in Plato's "The Republic" 2000 years ago.  He gave an interesting argument for a "perfect" government which would never really work, but is neat to think about. 

First of all, we need a leader who can't be corrupted.  What corrupts a leader? Friends, lovers, material possessions, land.  So a perfect leader can't have any of those.  He isn't allowed to have friends, lovers, money, or land.  He is given what he needs to survive, and nothing more.  That prevents him from favortism, or corruption.  You tell everybody that they are born into their jobs.  I believe Plato says something about "metal in their veins".  The ruler is born with gold in his veins, and the commoners with bronze.  Working men can never be a leader, and the leader can never be a worker.

IE: The Llama.

[trust]

The other book that examines a perfect government is The Prince, by Machievelli.  I really don't remember what he said about it, thought, so you'd have to look it up. 

LOL, The Prince HARDLY examines "perfect government," but rather a perfect exploiter.

Same thing, really.  Somebody who can control people makes the best ruler

Saddam could control people, by starving them and only allowing them enough food to survive. Then torturing their families.
The Catholic Church could control people, by keeping them ignorant and only telling them what they wanted them to hear.

That doesn't mean they were good rulers.

[MyndFyre]

Best government =IMO= least intrusive.

What's the difference between a totall (100%) intrusive government (which sounds like your ideal government) and anarchy?

A government still needs to be somewhat intrusive.  A government exists to protect the weak from the strong, not to make the weak as powerful as the strong.

A government's primary job is to keep people safe from one another.  To do so, it institutes laws that protect people from physically (assault, rape, murder) or injunctively (slander, theft, intellectual property infringement) harming one another.

A society's economy should be entirely self-regulated by the private sector.  In an entirely self-regulated economy, Microsoft would not be able to survive indefinitely.  Competing companies would start up, and some business owners would refuse to sell out.  Would the majority holders of SCO sell out to Microsoft?  Doubtful.  Furthermore, competition is not only advantageous to the customer, but in the long-term, healthy for businesses and technology.  To compete, companies must continually be innovating their technology.

A government is right to work at regulating this, but only to a certain degree.  That degree is minimal: for example, government should step in and prevent collective individual owners from forming agreements to price-gouge.  While this is generally an unlikely event anyway, because only one owner has to commit to do it and then not do it for the pact to fall apart, in Arizona, the gas station owners have been price gouging.  All the other laws we have, and we don't have something worthwhile on the books.  Arizona didn't even have a shortage of fuel.

[iago]

Saddam could control people, by starving them and only allowing them enough food to survive. Then torturing their families.
The Catholic Church could control people, by keeping them ignorant and only telling them what they wanted them to hear.

That doesn't mean they were good rulers.

Saddam obviously wasn't very good at controlling people, because he was taken out.  I don't mean controlling just your citizens, but it includes other governments and others within your own government, too.  I should have said that. 

The Catholic Church has been a respected ruler for how long?  And is still very strong.  I think that makes them pretty good. 

Best government =IMO= least intrusive.

What's the difference between a totall (100%) intrusive government (which sounds like your ideal government) and anarchy?

A government still needs to be somewhat intrusive. A government exists to protect the weak from the strong, not to make the weak as powerful as the strong.

A government's primary job is to keep people safe from one another. To do so, it institutes laws that protect people from physically (assault, rape, murder) or injunctively (slander, theft, intellectual property infringement) harming one another.

A society's economy should be entirely self-regulated by the private sector. In an entirely self-regulated economy, Microsoft would not be able to survive indefinitely. Competing companies would start up, and some business owners would refuse to sell out. Would the majority holders of SCO sell out to Microsoft? Doubtful. Furthermore, competition is not only advantageous to the customer, but in the long-term, healthy for businesses and technology. To compete, companies must continually be innovating their technology.

A government is right to work at regulating this, but only to a certain degree. That degree is minimal: for example, government should step in and prevent collective individual owners from forming agreements to price-gouge. While this is generally an unlikely event anyway, because only one owner has to commit to do it and then not do it for the pact to fall apart, in Arizona, the gas station owners have been price gouging. All the other laws we have, and we don't have something worthwhile on the books. Arizona didn't even have a shortage of fuel.

What you're saying is extremely objective, it seems.  "The government should intervene in some areas, but not in others" -- are you the one who chooses the proper areas?  If not, who gets to make that call?  It seems to me that somebody already did make the call where the government should intervene, and it does. 

[MyndFyre]

What you're saying is extremely objective, it seems.  "The government should intervene in some areas, but not in others" -- are you the one who chooses the proper areas?  If not, who gets to make that call?  It seems to me that somebody already did make the call where the government should intervene, and it does. 

What I'm really trying to say is that people should be self-determined.  If you succeed it should be of your own accord; if you fail, likewise.  Government should be designed to prevent people from causing others to fail.

[iago]

What you're saying is extremely objective, it seems.  "The government should intervene in some areas, but not in others" -- are you the one who chooses the proper areas?  If not, who gets to make that call?  It seems to me that somebody already did make the call where the government should intervene, and it does. 

What I'm really trying to say is that people should be self-determined.  If you succeed it should be of your own accord; if you fail, likewise.  Government should be designed to prevent people from causing others to fail.

If the government could help 100 people to succeed at the cost of prevending 5 others from succeeding, then should they interfere? 

Note/disclaimer: That's not intended as an argument against you or anybody here, it's intended as a point of dicussion related to what you said.

[trust]

Saddam could control people, by starving them and only allowing them enough food to survive. Then torturing their families.
The Catholic Church could control people, by keeping them ignorant and only telling them what they wanted them to hear.

That doesn't mean they were good rulers.

Saddam obviously wasn't very good at controlling people, because he was taken out.  I don't mean controlling just your citizens, but it includes other governments and others within your own government, too.  I should have said that. 

The Catholic Church has been a respected ruler for how long?  And is still very strong.  I think that makes them pretty good. 

The Catholic Church isn't an accepted ruler, but back in the dark ages they were the only people that could read so they kept their followers ignorant (until invention of the printing press, for which Gutenberg was killed.) And even many years after that leaders would still write to the Pope for permission to do things. I don't see Bush asking the Pope's permission to carry out policy.

[MyndFyre]

If the government could help 100 people to succeed at the cost of prevending 5 others from succeeding, then should they interfere? 

Note/disclaimer: That's not intended as an argument against you or anybody here, it's intended as a point of dicussion related to what you said.

No.  People have wills; governments should not.

The government should be able to go to the 100 people and say, "Look, there are 100 people who can benefit from you if you're willing to give xxx and yyy to them.  In the long term, everyone wins" (which is of course true).  "Will you do so?"  Then the people who are successful will be able to decide.  It's in their best interests for several reasons (a mob of 100 people will be storming to break in their doors if they don't).

[Warrior]

Depends on who you are.

If you are bad someone who views themselves as good sees you as bad while you see them as bad for being good which is really bad but it's good to you but it's bad because you hate good but then you'd like what you don't hate which'd make it good which makes you hate it.....SYSTEM OVERLOAD.