elasto wrote:ucim wrote:...you end up with what I presume is your present view of what government's job is - to wit: "to give me shelter, food, [and] healthcare".
Is this your actual view of the job of government? Because I don't see it as government's job to give you anything.
I definitely view it as the government's duty to offer me those things if I lack them. It's my right to refuse them of course. Does your worldview genuinely clash with mine..?
Yes, I definitely expect the government to seek out homeless people and offer them shelter, food and access to a doctor. Here's an example of that happening in Europe right now (which the BBC has framed in slightly clickbaity fashion)
I don't agree that offering those things is always the government's duty. That said, I view "how many people are hungry, homeless, or sick" as fair metrics of a country and government. If everyone's well fed, there is less cause to quibble about how food is distributed. If starvation is rampant, well...of course there's a problem. Direct food aid, giving people cash instead, working on a good economy so less are hungry in the first place...all viable, in the right circumstances. The government isn't required to do any specific action, but the end result remains important.
Zohar wrote:Except usually the reason the outsiders want to come after us is because of the government, not the governed...
Also quite true. Now, we probably can't get away with anarchy entirely for practical reasons, but it's fair to observe that defense serves the government's ends, often more so than the governed.
Pfhorrest wrote:Tyndmyr wrote:All rentals and lending at interest pose a significant problem period.
Why on earth should I lend or rent something with no interest at all? I gain nothing, and I get risk. Perhaps the loan will go unrepaid, or the rented item be broken. In either case, I cannot use the rented item/money during that time. Plus, inflation is a thing. If there is no possibility of gain, why would I inconvenience myself?
Pfhorrest wrote:People who can't afford to buy necessary things like housing because prices are artificially inflated by richer people buying it up to lend it out (and because they're too busy paying to borrow it meanwhile to save to buy any themselves) are forced to participate.
The price for me to build a house is governed primarily by the prices of goods at home depot, and craftsman labor. If a rental property is constructed, it affects my prices very little. Now, for truly scarce things like land, sure, competition exists. Few goods are so finite. If no rental properties exist, it would be quite difficult indeed to get started. Even if home prices were cheaper to some small degree, even a fraction of a home price would be beyond many. What would they do, become homeless?
What of those who wish to live in an area for a short time? Perhaps, going to college. Should they be required to own property in order to receive education? Can you not see negative effects of this?
Pfhorrest wrote:Borrow money from a community-owned credit union that exists for exactly that purpose to give interest-free loans (using the money the community aren't presently using for anything else, that they have saved with the credit union)? That's just off the top of my head, I can probably do better.
I dunno how credit unions work where you're from, but they certainly charge interest here. They are sometimes more reasonable than banks, which is nice, but those buildings can't really be paid for from no interest loans.
Pfhorrest wrote:ucim wrote:Why would somebody lend their money out to strangers interest free? Especially if there's a risk they wouldn't ever get it back? Would you?
"Borrowing" something and not giving it back is theft. If we had proper rule of law where stolen property could actually be recovered, then yeah, I'd be fine with letting property I'm not using be of use to someone else in the meantime. (Especially if it was as part of a larger community project, like a credit union, to whom I lend my saved money, which is pooled with other members' saved money to be lent to those with some use to put it to, so it's not just me bearing whatever risk remains, it's a social endeavor that many people have an interest in protecting). In general, society needs enforcement of elementary protections like this for markets to work properly. That's the "regulation" Adam Smith wrote about.
I loan someone my car, and it is wrecked in an accident. The borrower did not mean for this to happen, but nevertheless, cannot replace the vehicle. What happens now? Imprison the borrower for being poor?
Adam Smith didn't hate interest, yo.
ucim wrote:Yes, I think that enemies and aggressors are naturally occuring. That's how people are. They want something, some of them will just take it. No government needed. Governments sometimes help formalize and amplify and focus certain aggressions, but they are by no means its source.Zohar wrote:You seem to think enemies and aggressors are just naturally occurring elements of society and not a result of government. What I'm getting at is governments are the cause of these enemies.
Sure. One guy is a bully, and will bully the weak. And so a larger group will stop him. And a larger group will stop that group. And sooner or later you get a group big enough to be called a government.
The state of nature, in practice, is of tribal organization pretty much everywhere, but when two organizations conflict violently, the bigger one *tends* to win.
However, this doesn't make governments virtuous, any more than evolution makes surviving species virtuous. It's good to be skeptical of governments, because what makes them survive may in no way be correlated with your needs. Or even the needs of many. One might think of it as cells in a body, if only the cells were sentient.
Pfhorrest wrote:cphite wrote:But if you notice, rent and interest are options precisely because - as an almost universal rule - people find them to be desirable options.
They are desirable options to the people in power, because they help them maintain and grow their power.
Slavery was a desirable option for slaveowners, too.
There is a large difference here, in that rent is desirable to ALL participants, whereas slavery is not. The same is true of theft or other such arrangements. A mutually satisfactory arrangement is simply not the same as one in which one party must be coerced, no matter how much the other enjoys it. Equating the two is a non starter. If you wish to dismiss the wishes of people, find a similar example.