Forum Post: What sort of things should the government NOT provide socially?
Posted 12 years ago on Jan. 26, 2012, 1:21 p.m. EST by warbles
(164)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Just curious. Please discuss....
Government should mot provide banksters the incredible privilege of "creating money out of thin air:" aka "fractional reserve lending."
Government should not provide interest payments to private banksters for the use of our own money.
Since in a democracy the people are the government, the question is circular. What should we not provide ourselves?
Well, the constitution needs to be consulted first of course, but other than that...
DOD.IRS.ICE.CIA.FBI.NSA.ATF.Home Land security.Secret Service.State police.city police.county police.national park service.federal state and county,city dept of corrections.BLM.Dept of treasury.Federal Reserve.IRS. Etc.
I'm not a fan of being the world place(I know its cliche but whatever) I'm also not a fan of spending on illegals.
The world place? What?
Oh I'm sorry I meant police.
The Federal government: military, dealing with foreign countries, airlines, coinage. The States can decide the rest.
What about big infrastructure projects that stretch across numerous states, such as rail roads or waterways?
y federal government. But on the other hand it could be done with agreements between the involved states.
I think we need a national bank to finance such projects. It could do so at low interest rates, since it wouldn't have to pay profits to private owners. Then it could pay itself off over the long term.
A possibility.
The is an idea for the "Wall Street Alternative" a national bank. Big infrastructure projects also require a lot of manufacturing and medium sized manufacturing firms. These could be developed more by private finance.
A concern of individual states.
Wouldn't that be left up to the railroad businesses?
I think we want infrastructure to be public, to be done at the lowest cost.
Things like roads yes but railroads should be left up to businesses because there is machinery in use all the time literally all over the railroads that must be maintained at the cost of the companies so I think it would be most efficient to let a company run railroads.
Here's an article on the topic:
How The Government And Army Built America's Railroads http://www.larouchepac.com/node/14734
You might not like the author, but please check it out and tell me what you think. Here is a brief quote:
"In the United States, the railroads were planned by the Army, and financed by government, as projects vital for national defense and economic development. Then, Americans went abroad to build railroads, to secure other nations as America's allies against British Empire geopolitics.
These assertions of ours fly in the face of enormous public prejudice, resulting from indoctrination by British "free-trade" propagandists. History texts agitate against the railroad as a locus of corruption and an instrument for the oppression of the masses."
That's an interesting thought. I also learnt that the internet was devised as a national security project designed to protect communication in case of a nuclear attack. Before the internet if a bomb was to blow up a telephone line crossing the nation, then communication would be hindered. Now with the internet and the packet process it employees, information is more easily routed around a severed line.
Check out the link if you have the chance, its pretty interesting.
I think that we ought to make a distinction between "State" and "public"
Within our fundamentally broken system, the only entity that is really capable administering public services is the State. Thus public services mean State spending.
For example, I think that medicine/ambulance/EMT/surgery/health-care ought to be provided as a public service, and access to that service ought to be a basic right---regardless of the ability of the patient to pay. Under the current system, the only way to accomplish this would be through a national health-care system.
I think our system is deeply flawed. It assumes that the only two institutions able to administer goods and services are corporations and governments. Both of these institutions are fundamentally unethical/hierarchical, and there are alternatives to them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_economics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_%28economic_theory%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism
So in answer to your question:
I don't think that the "government" (The State) ought to provide ANYTHING
However, since we are presently under the rule of a nation-state and have a capitalistic economy, I think a basic social safety net, University education and socialized medicine should be provided as a bare minimum.
Free tuition to state schools, or would you expect the government to pay for whatever school you can get into?
Like I said I don't think there even ought to be "government".
But if we assume there is, not only should the government pay for your school, they should PAY YOU to go to school (provided you make the grade) as though it was your job. Many countries actually do this--- much to their benefit. It's a sound investment for society to give its scientists/doctors/engineers the skills they need to improve the lives of everyone.
A. where does the money come from, and B. where does this actually happen?
Where does the money come from? Is this part of one of those anarchist/socialist type Noam Chomsky Utopias? Or would you be willing to see taxes go to 45 or 50%?
I know some of the oil rich nations do it. China used to but stopped, students now compete for a limited number of scholarships and the government has allowed private schools to open, so they are going the other way.
Okay.
[Removed]