Governments Can Force The Citizens To Buy Anything They Wish To Sell

[HydrogenBond]

Moderation note: this post was moved from the sociology forum thread "the future", because it is a discussion of present-day government, rather than the original thread's discussion of a BBC article on the future, which included speculation about the future of government.

 

I am making a valid claim by showing a contrast. 

 

Governments can force the citizens to buy anything they wish to sell; products and services One cannot opt out. It takes years and lots of resources to changes the laws. Business will also try to sell products, services, and ideas, but the citizens have the option to opt out, without cost and without fear the business will send in the goons. That is a big difference. Why is being forced to buy better than being free to choose, unless you are a child and mom knows best for you? 

 

Government, because it can use force to sell, does not have to provide top quality products. People still have to buy; via tax dollars, whether it is good, bad or cost effective. In the free market and the business world, since there is competition and since all the people can opt in or out, quality and cost has to be better to get people to buy. The free market approach would save world resources or make it go further.

 

For example, private high schools cost about half that of public high schools, and one can opt in or out of any private school. If we needed to educate the world, why would the more expensive and inefficient option, that you can't opt out of, be better?  The free market solution allows us to educate twice as many with the same resources. 

 

A world government could theoretically work, if we had the most competent people with the most altruistic tendencies. But this is not likely to happen or remain in place for long. Power has the option to enforce, inefficient choices, allowing less skilled people, in terms of the job, rise to power by being skilled in political gaming. In US, the most competent people do not run, because they are not good at the game. Business could not function in the free market, with political gaming coming first, because they have to compete and they can't force you to buy. They need competence at all levels of the operation, and not just actors and gamers playing the role of CEO. 

 

If government was forced to be efficient; such as with a balanced budget, fewer people become qualified to lead under those conditions. This would separate those who can walk from those who are all talk. Deficit spending allows less skilled people in the power structure, since efficiency is not needed, when you can force people to buy anything. The less resources you have, the more skill it takes to do any job. What company would need a billion dollar web site to launch a product nobody can opt out of? Liberals do not want a balanced budget because they have more incompetent people who will look bad. 

 

The liberal vision, appears to be a world government that uses force to redistribute wealth. However, the wealth will first be stored in the world government coffers, to be divided up by those in power.  One cannot opt out of this, even if those in power make everything less efficient for all. There will not be a competency exam for high offices, so political gamers can force poor choices on all. 

 

A free world citizen model is where the citizens/tax payer decide what then wish to buy, both in the free market and within government. They wait for the government to offer new choices and then tell the government what to sell and at which price. This model will require the best people in government, since they will need to solve problems and innovate at low costs, without the use of force to buy.

Edited April 5, 2015 by CraigD

[HydrogenBond]

The bottom line is government can force you to buy anything they want to sell. Tax is not optional, and citizens don't have direct input on decisions that impact them. This is done, indirectly, through elections, with a large time delay between, so once things get going, they become hard to change; choice is removed. 

 

Business has to compete for your money, since they can't force taxes on you nor can they force you to buy into anything. Each individual consumer can choose to buy or not to buy. They have direct representation in the market place. Nothing is permanent and cast into stone. As new ideas appear the old has to change, or go the way of the dinosaur; horse and buggy to car. This is not true in government because politics get in the way; advantages for those in power. 

 

There may be a few utilities where one is locked in; cable TV, internet, oil, etc. However, this is the exception in the business world. However, in government this is the rule of law. In business you get choice and value for you dollar about 95% of the time. 

 

Let us we assume human nature is the same in all people, both in business and government. If we assume the worse case for each scenario, government can do far more damage than business. One example is partisan rule of law where one side is forced to eat bad fish. Those who would prefer government must see the inefficiency and misuse of power as benefiting them. 

 

Business does not allow partisanship in the same damaging way to people. We may have coke and pepsi competing, with the consumers becoming partisan. But Pepsi can't use its power to covert all the cola nuts and drive Coke out of business. They need to do this with marketing because business can't use force unless they get the government involved; solar and oil. 

 

I like the idea of a government model based on something as free and competitive as business. Politics is where actors get to play the role of leaders, with these actors directed and produced by handlers. In a business model of government, we would need leaders more than handlers.  

Edited April 6, 2015 by HydrogenBond

[HydrogenBond]

If we look at possible future world government models, the best government is one that overlords the least, since government takes away liberties and freedom in proportion to its size and power. 

 

A better model is based on free enterprise. As a contrast, in American government, we have democrat and republicans. In the free market, we have Coke and Pepsi. Coke and Pepsi do not have the power to squander national resources, to buy votes, so they can take away the freedoms of the other party, by stacking the deck with laws and deductions. With competitors like Coke and Pepsi, both are able exist side by side with both types of people free to come and go, without being ripped off by the other. They have to compete fair and square without using power to take turns cheating.The difference is Coke and Pepsi have to use their own resources, while Democrat and Republican act like they own the tax payer money and are free to rip off the other side's share.  

 

Most models of a world government, begin in the minds of liberals. They all seem to see a liberal government, stealing from the rich and productive, and replacing them with boot licking morons who can never make the government as productive.  I suppose if you are in on the spoils, stealing sounds good. This is not a Coke and Pepsi model where the best products and services win and the people, by having a choice, require both maintain quality and cost effectiveness. 

 

I like the idea of free market government, where the citizens who pay taxes, even $1, get to directly decide how their personal tax share is spent, like they do in the free market. If you believe in social issues, you can earmark all your taxes to that. If one is about a strong military they can earn mark all your tax share to that. If you like children and education the most, you can earmark to that. If you are more fair minded and balanced, you can spread your taxes over many areas.

 

This is then added up, for all the tax payers, and a balanced budget is defined and given to the government to implement; national shopping list. The goal of government would be to make it happen. Before the tax payers decide, the various agencies of the government would compete for the tax dollars, by outlining their business plan, so the tax consumers know where the quality and best bang for the buck is. If I gave all my taxes to feed the poor, I would like to know who among them can feed the most people with my money. 

 

Since the top 10% of the tax payers; the rich, pay more than 50% of the taxes, they will have more say for the shopping list. They are the most productive on the average and will choose to spend in ways that make things more productive; can understand government business plans. This raises the standard of living for all due to free market forces. 

[pgrmdave]

If we look at possible future world government models, the best government is one that overlords the least, since government takes away liberties and freedom in proportion to its size and power.

So, correct me if I'm wrong but by this thinking the best government would be one where there were no police, no courts, no protection of private property, no public roads?

 

A better model is based on free enterprise. As a contrast, in American government, we have democrat and republicans. In the free market, we have Coke and Pepsi. Coke and Pepsi do not have the power to squander national resources

I assume that's because the same resource you label a "national resource" when the government uses it you relabel a "private resource" when a private company uses it? Nestle's use of water in California certainly qualifies as "squandering national resources" to most people.

 

 

 

the rich and productive

Earning money through investment isn't being productive. It may be increasing overall productivity of the people who are producing by affording them access to capital goods so that they can leverage their skills into greater production but it's still the workers who are productive, not the financiers.

 

boot licking morons who can never make the government as productive.

No really, tell me how you feel about the people who work to build our roads, run our trains, clean our streets, maintain our parks, teach our children, oversee the safe production of our medicines foods and beverages.

 

This is not a Coke and Pepsi model where the best products and services win and the people, by having a choice, require both maintain quality and cost effectiveness.

It's almost like not all goods and services are excludable and rivalrous.

 

I like the idea of free market government, where the citizens who pay taxes, even $1, get to directly decide how their personal tax share is spent, like they do in the free market.

Wow, that's a hell of a misdirection there. We don't have that power in the free market at all. Once I buy a burger from McDonalds, I don't get to tell the owners what they can do with that dollar. All your idea ends up doing is codifying bribes. This is the worst governmental idea I have ever heard, and I've listened to anarcho-capitalists.

[Racoon]

We don't live in a perfect world.

In fact we keep electing dictators who are only making it worse.

 

If you want to make a change then get people to stop listening to the mass media and become self-sufficient.

[pgrmdave]

We don't live in a perfect world.

In fact we keep electing dictators who are only making it worse.

 

If you want to make a change then get people to stop listening to the mass media and become self-sufficient.

I agree, we keep electing conservatives who ignore evidence of effective economic and social policies to increase broad prosperity and decrease criminal behavior and rely mainly on appeals to nostalgia for times that were never that good. If we fixed the gerrymandering problem we'd have a more liberal House. If we reduced the political benefits people gained by living in low-population states (Senate + Presidential Electors) we'd have a more liberal Senate.

 

When you have a party whose hopes for low turnout on election day then you've got a broken system.

[HydrogenBond]

Governments use other people's money as though it was their own. Free enterprise, is more like an individual, in that it uses its own money. There is a difference in attitude, between using you own stuff and other people's stuff. This is human nature. Try an experiment where you work all year to save and give your neighbor a debit card to your account, so he can make decisions about your money. You will hope he has your interests in mind and not just his own.   

 

If you needed to feed the world, you will need to have that more personal attitude toward resources or else there is waste and less for end users. The war on poverty in America spend $10T that is ten trillion dollars, over 50 years, with no change in the poverty rate. If we had the same people do this for the world, we would end up  in the same place, after 50 years after spending $100T. These programs were designed for the middlemen, not to solve the problem. If the goal was to solve the problem, the program would have worked itself into extinction and not into a giant parasite. 

 

When you get to spend to other people's money, there is no need set limits on yourself, they way you do with your own stuff. This lack of limits allow morons to control vast sums of money. The more you can spend, the less honest and competent, one needs to be. As you get personal with the money, one gets cheap, and needs to be more ingenious to solve the problem. 

 

Let us go back to you giving your neighbor a debit card to your savings account. Say we need to throw a party for all the children of the neighborhood. You will try to balance the needs of your hard worked for savings and the needs of the party. You strike that balance you may need to get volunteers, and use your own skills and ingenuity to make this a success. The neighbor does not feel the pressure of his personal savings. He has your card to spend. He can look better and have to do less, if he spends more or all your savings. 

 

To make the resources go farther, for the world, the tax payer needs to have the final say over taxes so there is a personal connection. The government becomes a servant that does the bidding based on less resources. The current forms of government, would fail this test. This may require farming the jobs to private sector firms, until government can up its game; take resources personally.

Edited April 17, 2015 by HydrogenBond

[fahrquad]

I agree, we keep electing conservatives who ignore evidence of effective economic and social policies to increase broad prosperity and decrease criminal behavior and rely mainly on appeals to nostalgia for times that were never that good. If we fixed the gerrymandering problem we'd have a more liberal House. If we reduced the political benefits people gained by living in low-population states (Senate + Presidential Electors) we'd have a more liberal Senate.

 

When you have a party whose hopes for low turnout on election day then you've got a broken system.

I think it is time for America to seriously consider a 3rd party candidate, since the Democratic candidate represents more of the same, while the Republican candidate seems to have totally irrational ideas.  Regarding the original post, government makes no products and sells no products, so the idea that the public would have to buy what government sold them is totally absurd.

Edited October 15, 2016 by fahrquad

[fahrquad]

To HydrogenBond,

 

I worked for county and municipal governments for 25 year and my wife has worked for county government for 27 years and I resent the idea that all government workers are lazy and incompetent.  I managed a department at a local municipality for 10 years and we came in under budget every year.  I had a lean and efficient operation that generated more revenue for the city in building permit fees and business licenses than we spent (by a very wide margin).  The county government that my wife works for has not given any cost of living increases or merit increases in about 10 years, and I keep trying to get her to look into the private sector since she could make much more there than she does now.  She doesn't want to leave because she is dedicated to her job and to her co-workers.  Our state government is woefully understaffed and underpaid.  Municipal, County, and State governments (at least ours) are required by law to have a balanced budget.  Your issues lay at the doorstep of the Feds.

Edited October 15, 2016 by fahrquad

[fahrquad]

Regarding post #1, paragraph 4, I would remind you of the quote from John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton (Lord Acton), "Absolute power corrupts absolutely".  Humans are generally greedy self centered beasts, and altruism is a rare and nebulous concept.  The only good examples of altruism that come to mind are Mother Teresa, Mahatma Gandhi, and the Dalia Lama (3/7,300,000,000)(you do the math to figure out what percentage that is)(both my engineering and my scientific calculators come up with 4.109589041 to the negative 12th power)(to the negative 10th power for those who tried until you divide by 100 to convert to a percentage).

 

In my role as a public servant, I have steered clear of entanglement in the political arena.  Every individual I have known with good intentions that entered the political arena has been corrupted to one extent or another by outside influences.  You cannot get any legislation that you support through whatever legislative body without making deals with other elected officials.  The whole "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" scenario is how government operates.  Of course some members of the legislative body have accepted contributions (bribes) from corporate interests, and are not working in the best interests of the public.  IMHO as an observer from the inside, "corporate donations" to campaigns or to individual legislators should be banned completely.  This would insure that the government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" works as intended.