|
|
|||
|
Navigation User login Who's online There are currently 10 users and 66 guests online.
Online users
Support OlyBlog OlyBlog is run by volunteers who care about Olympia. If you like what we're doing, make a donation: OlyBlog is powered by:
Who's new
 |
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Fri, 05/05/2006 - 9:42am.
I'm writing this on the fly, so if I don't include everything I'll be sure to update.
» A lot of people have put forth what they believe government should be funding (e.g. Procession, health care, education, etc.) but I haven't actually said what I think legitimate services are. Feel free to disagree. Law Enforcement I think this is a legitimate state function. I'm not talking about the DEA or Homeland Security, though. I think local and state law enforcement agencies (Olympia Police Department, Lacey Police Department, Washington State Patrol, etc.) are a necessity and work with the idea that government should protect from force and coercion. I try to separate the law enforcement agency (the officers themselves) from the lawmakers. Right now, and I'm sure Drew will disagree but, these are the only government employees I ever see in the news being held accountable for anything. Do we catch every rule or law an individual officer might break? No, we don't. But for a job where you must make your decision on the spot, I'd say they're held far more accountable than the state office worker who screws up an accounting sheet and ends up costing the taxpayers X-amount of dollars. In fact in Washington state, errors that cost millions of dollars mean you too can become governor. Fire Protection I'm putting this here but it's an area where I'm pretty mixed. Both police and fire responsibilities could be carried out by a private agency but I don't think they should. Using a law enforcement example (but it could be applied to fire as well), I read an article about private companies paying for K-9's for local law enforcement. Now this is all fine and dandy, the police have a dog, the community is happy, etc., etc. The problem? As is obvious, conflict of interest. Can I be guaranteed to get the same service? Emergency Response Basically, Medic One. If you're seriously injured and in need of immediate medical attention, the community should probably deal with it. None of these are "This is what government must take care of." I think each community should decide for themselves. Also, but community, I don't necessarily mean a city. People living in a housing development would constitute a community. This is on the local level and none of these three have to be provided by the government but they are things that I'm not in opposition of government carrying-out.
|
OlyBlog.net OlyBlog is devoted to citizen journalism, including hyperlocal news and discussion specifically about Olympia, Washington. If you care about this community and are tired of corporate media, then this is the place for you. If you'd like to contribute, please register for an account. Here is a list of local news beats that need to be covered. You can post your news as a personal blog entry, and it will be reviewed (and possibly edited) for promotion to the front page. Once you've established a record of responsible blogging, you can become an autonomous user. You can also send news via email. All members of OlyBlog agree to abide by our comment and fair use policies. If you are frustrated about something said in a comment thread, go here. Now playing at: 
Latest Classified Ads Upcoming events
 
|
|
|
More Flickr photos tagged with "olympia" and "washington" OlyBlog is a site for news and discussion about Olympia, Washington. |
|||
YIKES!
Submitted by Nicki on Fri, 05/05/2006 - 10:32am.Nicki: public streets, road
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Fri, 05/05/2006 - 11:06am.The Fire: I meant to make an entire thread about this yesterday, but this is a better starting point.
Our tax dollars, as you pointed out, have built the vast majority of the highway and roadway system. In turn, this has encouraged people to move away from large cities and live in suburban areas, using far more natural resources (petroleum driving into the city where they work, creating housing developments, etc) than had they stayed in the city.
The solution of many to curb this problem is to follow the Olympia City Council, reducing lanes of traffic, etc. This doesn't make sense, though, because it doesn't prevent people from driving, only from driving into your city (and spending their money there). So really, that's counterproductive.
Now imagine if our highway and roadway system was privately built (essentially, a toll-system). You think people are going to live in the sticks if their fee is high?
But if you lived in a metropolitan area, your fee would be lower (basic economics, as more people are paying for the service the price of the service decreases for each individual).
And then we come to petroleum. The highway and roadway system encouraged people to live as far away from the city as possible, using the maximum amount of petroleum.
I really think the highway and roadway system is a perfect example of where privately run organizations would have (not intentionally) done more for the environment than public policy.
I'm not saying "forget" culture, but is that really what government should be paying for? The same with music and playgrounds. The people who care about these things in government would still care if they were working in the private sector.
Coercive Entities
Submitted by DrewHendricks on Fri, 05/05/2006 - 1:02pm.Actually, I agree that more bureaucrats than cops get off for their individual mistakes. But I also think that many police officers get off the hook as well. Since the 'loss' of public funds is a relative measure (we all have different standards of what is valuable to spend money on) and the loss of life is a more objective measure, I'd say that more police answering for their actions makes a lot of sense. Using deadly force to "protect us from coercion" means you have a lot of responsibility to take.
By the way, the function of cops in government is NOT to protect you from coercion. It is to protect your right to own property, and to regulate the public life of the poor. There are plenty of coercive forces out there, from landlords to credit cards to gasoline companies to the CIA / NSA / FBI and the DOD. The local police protect you from none of these. If a poor person decides to rob you at gunpoint, you can call OPD. If your mortgage company rips you off, you're pretty much on your own to sue in civil court. If you want to steal a little, use a gun. If you want to steal a lot, use a pen.
Which is why we have an
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Sat, 05/06/2006 - 1:32pm.I can't find the link but there was a story out of Florida about a cable provider which had their employees tell people they needed to add an extra service which amounted to $5 extra per month.
The extra service wasn't necessary, just made ordering movies more convenient and added a few extra bucks to each account. Evidently supervisors were telling employees they needed to get this service added to accounts and that when making a trip out to a house (repairs, instillation, etc.) to push this service doing anything possible.
Some workers who came forward with all of this said they were told to tell people their cable box would "blow up" if they didn't add the service.
Since this is obviously a deceptive business practice, this would be where law enforcement (the suit and tie version) would step in and make the company cease the practice and make restitution with those who feel they were negatively affected by this policy.
You can't call OPD but you could call the Washington State Attorney General's Office or even the Better Business Bureau.
So yes, at the local level you're being protected from force far more than coercion.
Hmmmmmm
Submitted by white feather on Fri, 05/05/2006 - 5:02pm.Mail
Submitted by white feather on Fri, 05/05/2006 - 5:03pm.Just one thing.
Submitted by Rob Richards on Sat, 05/06/2006 - 1:58pm.Oh yeah
Submitted by Rob Richards on Sat, 05/06/2006 - 5:42pm.I don't see the evil in
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Sun, 05/07/2006 - 10:42am.The US National Library started because Congress purchased Jefferson's personal library, although John Adams's intent for the original National Library was for it to be a reference library for Congressional members.
The role of government in the economy
Submitted by Rick on Sun, 05/07/2006 - 10:15am.TFI is somewhere to the right of Adam Smith, who first articulated the importance of the free market. Smith observed that self interest is an important factor in driving economic activity:
However, in recognizing the importance of this motivation, Smith was not advocating that it is the only factor that is necessary for a well regulated society. In fact, he argued that unmitigated self interest was dangerous:Smith saw a function for government in many other areas, including education, non-profit organizations, judiciary, and defence. Smith himself was a philanthropist, giving a significant amount of his income to charities.
Many have misinterpreted Smith's arguments. Smith offered an analysis about why less government intervention would not result in chaos. Some have taken this to mean that there should be an absolute ban on government intervention.
We know from more modern economists that while unrestricted free markets don't result in chaos, they also don't achieve an optimal balance, e.g., Keynes:
Keynes believed that government spending is an essential component of long-term investment that would benefit both public and private sector economies, including investment in research, education, public health and infrastructure.
So, TFI: if such government activities create long-term benefit, why shouldn't your tax dollars go to pay for them?
Rick: Smith saw a function
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Sun, 05/07/2006 - 11:10am.The Fire: I don't think I've been out of step with this philosophy. I haven't advocated absence of government, simply minimal government.
You certainly haven't heard me advocate less national defense; just a re-adjustment of how it is handled (e.g. return to state militas rather than a National Guard).
I assume by "long-term benefit," you mean to benefit the most amount of people. For instance, if government weren't involved with education there would still be a segment of the population receiving formal degrees, it would just be less of the population.
How do I benefit from someone graduating high school and then entering the workforce?
Wouldn't I be better served by keeping my money and they be better served taking advantage of information already made available by the government (a library, perhaps?) and entering into an apprenticeship?
Not everyone needs or wants to be in the formal education system.
I think we should be free to decide for ourselves how we wish to be educated.
I don't think...
Submitted by Rick on Sun, 05/07/2006 - 1:05pm....you are better served by not contributing to a system that insures universal education, health and welfare. Your standard of life has a lot to do with the standard of other people's lives.