What is the role of the ideal government?

What is the role of the ideal government?

>tax money is spent on paying police officers, public education, public (free) health care, firemen, and similar public necessitites
>no financial regulation whatsoever, even in terms of environmental concerns (IGO membership ensures environmental protection beyond what the free market inevitably creates on its own)
>medium-sized army (a country with an open, self-regulating market producing sufficient capital doesnt need to invade countries in order to "make" money) and a couple of nukes, to keep the filth abroad from talking shit
>democratically elected, government-paid committee works to ensure that the people stated above actually serve the people, and not other interests

thats literally everything

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=EBxgrr0wL8M
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FAIR_Education_Act
abtirsi.com/quiz2.php
isidewith.com/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

LOHAN used to be so fucking hot

Public education is a mistake

>What is the role of the ideal government?
Secure the rights of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

gtfo outta pol if you dont understand shit about economics or politics

An minarchist goverment is the best

the role of the ideal government is to not exist

your government would be an improvement op, but get rid of the democratically elected part because that will inevitably warp what it means to serve the people and we'll end up with the shit we have today.

if economics or politics don't include reverence for the right to free movement, the right to own property, or the right to security in person and papers then the only thing left is authoritarian regimes. Who wants to live in an authoritarian regime? Maybe you do, but if so you are probably retarded in some way.

also public education and public health care need to go if youre to come even close to convincing me of the virtues of your government

Yeah makes me so sad

Is this fucking 2012?
Niggers 2017 is the WHITE NATIONALIST YEAR
If you're gonna be a libertarian at least be a Morrakiu style libertarian and read some fucking Hans Herman Hoppe. Jesus christ

zero government = any other state or political actor can at any point (probably IMMEDIATELY) come in and kill everyone/steal everything. not to mention the fact that anyone can kill anyone and steal anything from anyone and just do whatever. the "Invention" of a minimalist government where everyone chipped in 1 banana each per week to pay the 3 dudes made responsible for keeping people from stealing was an evolutionary necessity.

some government needs to exist, and i think the one i just described sounds pruddy good

>What is the role of the ideal government?

One that is staffed by angels and not by humans.

thats retarded

Indeed, you get overrun by immigrants wanting free shit.

A republic with self governing states.

Women get benefits for not working, while staying married and producing children. Also they are allowed to vote but their votes will not be counted if the males tick a box for that.

Public transport is free for those who pay for it with their taxes.

A constitution for basic rights and freedoms such as
Stand ground and castle law
Right to own a weapon for defence etc but will be removed if violent or serious crime is committed.

Reminder that Jews advertise this as children's television.
Look at her shirt. It's soft core porn.

>tax money is spent on paying police officers, public education, public (free) health care, firemen, and similar public necessitites
Fire services can be privatised (so can police perhaps). Education and health care can be vouchered, but should also be privatised.

>no financial regulation whatsoever, even in terms of environmental concerns (IGO membership ensures environmental protection beyond what the free market inevitably creates on its own)
I agree with the first part, but IGOs can't enforce environmental measures, only sovreign governments can.

>medium-sized army (a country with an open, self-regulating market producing sufficient capital doesnt need to invade countries in order to "make" money) and a couple of nukes, to keep the filth abroad from talking shit
Maybe, I don't know enough about military strategy to know how big a standing army should be. Non-intervention is a good idea though.

>democratically elected, government-paid committee works to ensure that the people stated above actually serve the people, and not other interests
A thorough constitution is good enough for this. Far less corruptable too. Regulators should not be policing other regulators.

C.

Basic education which covers most things and then everyone gets training for a career they want

>Women get benefits for not working, while staying married and producing children.
Hope you like conservative Muslims and Jews multiplying at an agressive rate.

>Also they are allowed to vote but their votes will not be counted if the males tick a box for that.
Not a bad idea but we should restrict voting further.

>Public transport is free for those who pay for it with their taxes.
Public transport should be privatised.

>A constitution for basic rights and freedoms such as stand ground and castle law
>Right to own a weapon for defence etc but will be removed if violent or serious crime is committed.
Agreed.

We should be more skeptical about what types of education we fund though.

You've missed the point.

To rule, in the name of God.

even if there is a thorough constitution, who is charged with performing the duties and maintaining the laws it entails? if only cops, then who are they accountable to?

and why do you feel that a privatized police force is preferable to a publicly accountable one? a privatized police force (or even worse, MANY privatized police forces) can very easily be turned into a private military company for some rich corporation within hours

im all for small government, but even Peter Schiff isnt for NO government

The government's job is to maintain order and stability; keeping the plebs in line by any means necessary.

It doesn't owe its citizens anything more than protection from foreign invaders and internal criminals.

>We should be more skeptical about what types of education we fund though.

Just the basics needed for living.

Maths (especially finance ) , the language spoken in the area + another choice if wanted, home ec/cooking/sowing etc.

Furthur education is privatised, say if one wants to become a farmer, they go and learn farming at an institute for that, a business could also pay for further education of an employee.

>even if there is a thorough constitution, who is charged with performing the duties and maintaining the laws it entails?
Constitutional courts and a small constitutional police force.

>if only cops, then who are they accountable to?
The judicial branch of government I just mentioned.

>and why do you feel that a privatized police force is preferable to a publicly accountable one?
Well, I'm not exactly all in for private police, but it could work.

I see that it's partially preferable so that victimless crimes are not punished and so that people can live under laws that they wish to live under. Such as allowing the death penalty between two parties that both favour it.

>a privatized police force (or even worse, MANY privatized police forces) can very easily be turned into a private military company for some rich corporation within hours
People will largely not want to do business with firms that have military forces that deal unfairly in legal disputes. Plus intellecual property (monopoly) should be abolished, so no memes about being shot for saying "I'm Lovin' It".

>im all for small government, but even Peter Schiff isnt for NO government
Neither am I, I'm not an ancap.

Sounds good.

>tfw you will never even see her In her prime

i understand your logic of the public not wanting to deal with corporations who own private domestic armies, but my concern here is less related to the open market, and more about what essentially becomes a military coup. i dont know much about the notion of a privatized police force, but that is one of several concerns that come to mind. another would simply be the fact that the police would not be a "public" service so much as it would be a service to the people who can afford it (and disproportinately serviceable towards those with more money, even when THEY have broken laws). and if you say "yeah everyone chips in 50 dollars each month to the biggest police organization", then its essentially equivalent to paying taxes for a government-paid police force anyway. And if the government is as minimalist as ive proposed, there wouldnt be any laws against victimless crimes where people just smoke pot or change genders or whatever

helicopter rides for cultural marxist traitors

Healthcare, policing, education, military, and a duty to use public money in an efficient manner.

>What is the role of the ideal government?

>tax money is spent on paying police officers, and military
>Regulating information that can be proven and replicated (so no history or gender studies or easily manipulated surveys)
>Helping only homeless (no poor welfare parasites)
>Protecting the environment (just in case)
>Only allowing one religion
>Making tests that show how much you know in your field so you can be employed easily and for a proper wage for your experience
>making sure everyone has access to free helicopter rides

>Only allowing one religion
>Making tests that show how much you know in your field so you can be employed easily and for a proper wage for your experience

what are you, a communist?

Pre-crack Lindsay Lohan was the perfect white woman.

What does that have to do with communism?
The government does not regulate wages, only shows your experience

you suggested people should be assigned jobs (i.e. you automatically get stuck on the corn fields, unless you are born a rich "decider"), you suggested that freedom of religion shouldnt exist, and you suggested the government should control information

youre a damn commie!

Truest words ever spoken, and from a leaf

> my concern here is less related to the open market, and more about what essentially becomes a military coup.
I would still support a standing army to keep the peace which would be larger than corporations could afford.

>another would simply be the fact that the police would not be a "public" service so much as it would be a service to the people who can afford it (and disproportinately serviceable towards those with more money, even when THEY have broken laws)
First of all, this wouldn't be something I'd advocate to happen tomorrow. The welfare state would have to be well out of the window and private charity and mutual aid would be in full force.

Secondly, I would imagine that rights enforcement agencies' rates would be fairly competitive and reasonably affordable. If most companies only decided to take on rich customers, another enforcement firm would be able to enter into a more budget market to sell their services.

Now before you say that richer citizens will still have better rights enforcement than the poor, doesn't this already happen in our current society, where you can always hire a more expensive lawer/legal team?

>and if you say "yeah everyone chips in 50 dollars each month to the biggest police organization", then its essentially equivalent to paying taxes for a government-paid police force anyway
I agree.

>And if the government is as minimalist as ive proposed, there wouldnt be any laws against victimless crimes where people just smoke pot or change genders or whatever
Agreed, but this has the possibility of being even better. Then again, maybe not, it's hard to say.

Environmental protection is utter crap. Your entire existence alone goes against environmental protection. An ideal government's role is to act as philosophers and address our own existence.

...

Healthcare is not a necessity faggot. If you can't afford cancer treatment then you should be forced to die if you get cancer.

>Environmental protection is utter crap.
So we should allow firms to pollute any water source they want?

>Your entire existence alone goes against environmental protection.
How so?

>An ideal government's role is to act as philosophers and address our own existence.
Why?

1 No I didn't
2 I meant so that we don't have a civil war over religion or that other religions don't move here and reproduce to much and take over the place
3 Only information that can be replicated,
So probably not global warming or evolution necessarily but that will just make people try to prove it more, the government shouldn't be able to shut down research, only spread already proved information

*too

Alright, I have a question for you.

Why would firms need large armies in the first place anyway?

Surely they'd be too expensive to be able to keep prices down for regular operations.

>What is the role of the ideal government?
The ideal government is no government at all, and a total world population of about 4 million

Some rich actor (can be a corporation, can be anything. Anyone who is rich, basically) feels that the government is shit, and he should be running things. He uses his army (aquired by whatever means) and takes over the country. This has happened several times, and I feel that with private police replacing public police, the possibility of that occurs.

Nukes protect the country from foreign threats like these, but not domestic

Defense, infrastructure, Basic labor laws(like no 8 year olds in meat plants) and currency policy.

i shouldnt have said it has happened SEVERAL times. throughout history, that has happened NUMEROUS times, and continues to happen

open market is awesome, but so is the ability to maintain liberal values

Why can't private firms decide for themselves what skills people have?

Why is it enevitable that civil wars happen due to differences in religion? Even in shithole India there hasn't been any civil wars since independence.

What do you mean by information that can be replicated?

A government would have to enforce against certain types of public and private degeneracy, and encourage the creation of norms and institutions that discourage most other forms. No faggotry, no public obscenity, discourage gluttony, pride, lust, etc.

>but muh freedoms
Conflating freedom with permissiveness is callow. No one who goes through life governed by unconstrained animal urges is said to be free in any true sophistication. Civilized behaviour is the prerequisite and requirement of civilization, it stands to reason that civilization must in turn guarantee civilized behaviour.

I deleted my Lohan folder when the market crashed. M-moar? Help an user out.

So what's stopping it from happening in constantly today?

It's perfectly possible for multinationals to create their own standing armies offshore, but they don't.

Corporations could take over half of Africa if they wanted too. It's not just the reaction of the international community that stops them, but the cost associated with such an operation.

The other problem for these armies is that the risks are too high. Who's to say that people will recognise their sovreignty as legitimate, and there won't be full blown civil war?

It's seriously much less costly and risky to just operate in a free market than to stage an armed takover of a whole country.

>A government would have to enforce against certain types of public and private degeneracy
So your fine with constant surveillance to stop people from doing degenerate things?

>Conflating freedom with permissiveness is callow
Freedom requires tolerance of other people's opinions and non-violent practices though.

Redhead Lohan was my absolute teenage crush. Still one of the hottest things I have seen to this day. Too bad she let herself go.

well, it does constantly happen. but yea i recognize your point about the costliness of it, but if major corporations seize to be compartmentalized & this hypothetical, extremely minimalist government (last of which was seen in the US some 90 years ago), they could do this easily & without bloodshed (government military could be forced to surrender easily) and you would have a silent, but unwanted revolution.

I agree with your points, and realize that its not something that is entirely likely to happen, but it is a legitimate possibility that only occurs when entirely privatizing police forces, which i dont see a strong argument for doing in the first place

>to stay out of my fucking business.

She looks ready to breast feed some of my pups right there

>well, it does constantly happen
Where?

>government military could be forced to surrender easily
Maybe, but I don't think the citizenry will. Especially the rest of the firms that have security forces.

Look at it like competition. Other firms' forces stop one firm from taking over the government.

Plus the cost angle is again important because businesses usually don't price their goods cheaper than their costs as this pricing strategy is incredibly risky. So is putting yourself through a war.

Also, what makes you think that people would want to wage war offensively for the sake of a company's profit? A lot of people join security firms these days because they expect to just be playing a defensive role, not sure how willing those people would be to take down a government.

World-spanning Fascist regime. All those unwilling to get with the 'western white civilization' program are sterilized and expelled to some shitty uninhabitable patch of Africa to die out.

Humanity united under authoritarian 'nationalist' rule that organizes society as an organic system who's constituent parts must work together to serve the common good. Market capitalist economy with a moral imperative to never place absolute profit over the greater wellbeing of the state. Any attempts to exploitatively profit at the expense of your fellow citizen or the state system are regarded as treason.

Differences in race and gender are finally acknowledged as biological in nature. All races and tribes are considered valuable in one aspect or another but no culture is tolerated that attempts to exist outside or in conflict with white western civilization. Race mixing and sexual degeneracy are heavily discouraged but not illegal. Attaching a stigma to homosexuality will ensure that it's only real homos who engage in it and not just fucking douchebags desperate for attention.

Casual sex is heavily discouraged (and perhaps tracked electronically so women AND men can't lie about their # and sluttieness). Faithful marriage at a young age (by today's standards) between persons of the same race is encouraged economically and through government social programmes.

Euthanasia is available and perhaps mandatory for the extremely aged, infirm, terminally ill and mentally incapable.
Birth control in any form is illegal for anyone considered 'desirable' to society, but the state will gladly take complete responsibility for any child or pregnancy considered desirable no questions asked. Pregnancies and children considered 'at risk' in a single parent environment are taken by CPS and parents must earn access to kid.

CPS is a public boarding "military school" education system that starts with newborns and replaces public education. "Good" Parents with means can opt-out.

That might work but then large businesses might copyright the tests and small businesses could have unqualified people working for them
We have the risk of getting the "burger education" where people hare hired on their college grades more than what they actually know
Also the businesses can choose whether or not they want to give the government's tests


History has shown that people will always fight over religion, Atheism and Islam, even devoutly peaceful religions like Christianity can turn violent. I just want to make sure we're fighting other country's religion and not our own
The religion should be able to change but only if there is an absolute need for it

Things that have been proven by scientists as well as ordinary citizens, like the entire table of elements instead of the four, or why resistors get hot and things like that

...

Fulgencio Bautista & some of the countries involved in arabian spring immediately come to mind. I can probably spend a while finding numerous anecdotal examples, but the gist is basically that it constantly happens in countries that arent a part of the western civilization (i.e. non-shitty countries)

and i do believe security firms and private police forces could be bought. thats inherent in the philosophy of the open market: money can buy you anything, including people willing to help you take over their own country. it doesnt happen in the west because people are mostly content, and the government is too strong and ingrained (for lack of a better term) for it to conceivably happen. but with a minimalist government akin to early 20th century USA, i think there are several individuals who would love to become president for no reason other than self aggrandizement. Historically, this has happened time and again. People go to war and make terrible mistakes just for the sake of becoming more recognizeable, and having more power, and being bigger, etc. If machiavelianism is true (which, i mean, it is) then the idea of someone doing something like this despite of short-term (and maybe even long-term) personal losses is a definite probability.

and again, in terms of the people recognizing such a new government, if any actor forces the government to sign itself over (which could happen silently overnight) but peoples' lives do not IMMEDIATELY change noticeably, i definetly think that could happen without an uprising.

do you not see this as even remotely plausible? and if you do, how does the cost of just having cops be a public service outweigh it?

>Pre-crack Lindsay Lohan was the perfect white woman.

this. the sordid things i would have done to her in her prime.

She was a fairly attractive girl with a huge pair of fake tits, guys. Don't get too excited over a teenager with huge plastic funbags, that's how Disney shoves another talentless waste of space down your throat every 3-4 years.

meant for:

The roll of the ideal government is to promote the quality of life of it's citizens by the most effective means.

How that is done depends on the culture of the people, the technology and resources that can be developed, and what the people consider to be a raising quality of life.

Using the standard that the smallest aspect to change that has the biggest effect is the best aspect to regulate I think that controlling the monetary policy is the best way to raise the quality of life of the most people by the largest amount.

It's insane to live in a time of unequaled wealth and production and not the be able to have people able to consume the goods and services they want.

Goddamn, I want to lick those freckly arms like ice cream.

She was fucking beautiful for a time, such a shame it was so short.

>That might work but then large businesses might copyright the tests and small businesses could have unqualified people working for them
Why would this be needed? What is wrong with current hiring practices?

>people hare hired on their college grades more than what they actually know
College happens to be a good enough indicator of job suitability. Why would a government test be any better? How could government possibly design a test for every possible field that one could work in?

>Also the businesses can choose whether or not they want to give the government's tests
So what's the point of having them in the first place?

>History has shown that people will always fight over religion
Aren't most of us passed that yet?

>Things that have been proven by scientists as well as ordinary citizens, like the entire table of elements instead of the four, or why resistors get hot and things like that
And why should one organisation have a monopoly on information? How would they possibly lend this information out without it being easily distributed? How could they confiscate it in the first place?

>What is the role of the ideal government?
None, government is illegitimate violence.

>We have the risk of getting the "burger education" where people hare hired on their college grades more than what they actually know
>unqualified
are you attempting to imply that government administered tests are actually worth anything?

there are no quotas here, no profit requirements, no margins to aim for. government tests exist literally only to make some politician somewhere look good. the requirements of some cuck in washington have nothing to do with your average engineer.

you're like someone asking the republicans, and only the republicans, to create a national budget. you're going to get a skewed product, that's just the name of the game.

the only solution here is to make the government smaller, deregulate everything, then kill everyone who tries to fuck up the system (looking at (((you))), and the niggers).

in short, see top right, just with privately owned helicopters.

>do you not see this as even remotely plausible?
Yep. Honestly I am quite sick of arguing for an opinion that isn't even really mine.

You make some great points, but I'm a bit sick of all the hyopthetical arguments.

Well argued, man.

One thing I will say is that yes, almost anything can be bought on the free market, however most people are not willing to go to war for money, not belief. A government's military and competitor's militaries I think would be a stong enough deterent to company owners and definitely to shareholders.

>Violence: the supreme authority, from which all other authority is derived.

youtube.com/watch?v=EBxgrr0wL8M

Never said anything about the efficacy of violence, just that government is illegitimate violence.

I don't think we have to go that far, helicopter man.

We just need them to stop them from voting.

>
One thing I will say is that yes, almost anything can be bought on the free market, however most people are not willing to go to war for money, not belief. A government's military and competitor's militaries I think would be a stong enough deterent to company owners and definitely to shareholders.

I remember reading about that in The Prince. He did argue that yea, mercenaries are essentially shit compared to loyal followers (for religious reasons or love or whatever), but can still be applied when absolutely necessary. using mercenaries also requires you to constantly give them work, and therein lies an even bigger issue: after seizing a country, you need to keep your private army busy, or they might turn on you, which has also happened many times throughout history). anyway this has nothing to do with what the conversation was originally about. gg, cheers

Her face today is a national disaster area, Trump should do something. There has to be something that can be done.

yes, and you stop them from voting by throwing them out of helicopters. most will stop once you eliminate the leaders.

besides, look on the upside: lockheed martin stocks will skyrocket!

man, did you really have to go there? i was grooving to pre-crack lindsay, and now you went and ruined it

>public education
>public healthcare
into the trash it goes

>government-paid committee
retarded solution that has never worked and never will

If she's trying to make me gay with that shirt, it's not working.

I was praying lohan would start doing porn when she was in that movie with james deen.

It wouldn't be a bad move. She'd get a ton of attention, maybe even turn it around and get back into Hollywood.

One who makes sure that every decent and possibly only intelligent white man has an attractive intelligent wife first and foremost. Other shit after the main priority.

There's not much education in it.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FAIR_Education_Act

And she's not even 30 in these pictures.

...

Because application of violence is the de facto authority through which government maintains its power it is by definition legitimate violence.
People submit to government authority either through fear of government violence or hopefully through mutual agreement to allow government to wield violence on our behalf.

A legitimate government imo must allow citizenry to keep and bear arms: the tools by which the citizenry could potentially wield violence in opposition to a government that they no longer agree wields violence in their best interests.

Keep your greasy hands off the white lady, beaner.

Lizzard people have trouble keeping the same form completely, especially when they are fucked up as all fuck. Ask David Icke you faggot he will tell you whats up.

Because if you come from a poor family and can't afford to go to college or simply don't want to spend the time on schooling, you can still get a great job if you work hard

It sounds like you've never been to an american college though
Also they don't, just the ones that require a good amount of education to work

Freedom of the market and what I replied to the other guy

Certainly not, and you don't know what the future holds

It shouldn't, as I've said already the government only makes already known information readily available, it doesn't control education or charge tons of money for access to it
At the core it would be mostly just distributing correct information for cheap so that you have no excuse to be poor if you're complaining, the government test just gauges how much of this information you have taught yourself

Wouldn't privatising public transport have a high chance of ending up with one company getting a monopoly, which would be really bad? But if there's a way to avoid that then public transport should definitely be privatised.

What's this?

>information
and 99% of that information has literally no use for the normal holder of a degree.

go to any engineering graduate and ask him when he learned more, when he was studying or the first month on the job. every single person i have asked who was not in HR (it was always women in HR) or high management answered that they learned more in the first month.

IMO: The state should regulate workers rights to some degree.

If a company makes their employees work in toxic enviroments so they get sick as a result, there should be compensation as an example.

I would hope to avoid too much regulation, but I would still hope that state could provide safety so that coporations don't leech off Citizens lifes

If it's like taxi companies where the government ultimately controls who is able to compete, then yes you would end up with a monopoly, duopoly or other system where a disproportionate number of companies control the market share. If there's nothing besides being able to run and keep customers, then that's less likely since anyone could start taking customers and threaten any market controllers.

>leaving production to markets...

Say goodbye to your manufacturing base. How will you equip your army without the ability to produce the basics? Buy it from hostile nations?

Idiot.

What do you mean?
The tests would be made so that the normal holder of a degree would be able to pass as well

If the employer doesn't believe in the test they can hire whoever they want based on what they believe is important for the job

>would be made
yes, and the NBN was "made" to provide easy, cheap, long lasting and effective internet to the entire population of australia.

except, no, when you get the government involved in anything something will get fucked up. just look at lockheed martin's quarterly reports.

no matter what you say the outcome of your policy "should" be, there is always a deviation from what it actually will be. your plan has no protection against that, my plan has the protection of rotary wing aircraft and a white population. or in other words, my plan leads to a golden age of 250 years then a collapse, while your plan leads to the UK.

abtirsi.com/quiz2.php
isidewith.com/
Looks like the third one was taken down
Yes but there are may people pushing for education reform as it is
They would not rest until this is shown to work without too many drawbacks
And it would either work or it won't
If the costs are much higher than public ed now then it obviously won't

Based!