Jackercrack comments on A discussion of heroic responsibility - Less Wrong

39 Post author: Swimmer963 29 October 2014 04:22AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (215)

CC Licenced

Comments (215)

Sort By: Best

Show:

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Lumifer 03 November 2014 12:53:09AM 0 points [-]

Because a larger government takes more of my money, because it limits me in certain areas where I would prefer not to be limited, and because it has scarier and more probable failure modes.

Comment author: Jackercrack comment score below threshold [+] (16 children)

Comment author: Lumifer 03 November 2014 03:57:04AM 0 points [-]

Consider it from the view of the average wellbeing of the entire populace.

Sure. A larger government takes more of their money, limits them in areas where they would prefer to be not limited, and has scarier and more probable failure modes.

a small one simply outsources its failure modes to companies and extremely rich individuals.

No, I don't think so, not the really scary failure modes. Things like Pol Pot's Kampuchea cannot be outsourced.

People are eternal and essentially unchanging, the average level of humanity rises but slowly.

The second half of that sentence contradicts the first half.

The structure of the system they flow through is too important to be left to market forces and random chance.

I don't know of anyone who proposes random chance as a guiding political principle. As to the market forces, well, they provide the best economy human societies have ever seen. A lot of people thought they could do better -- they all turned out to be wrong.

so long as on average the lot of humanity is improved.

You're still missing a minor part -- showing that a large government does indeed do that better compared to a smaller one. By the way, are you saying that the current government size and power (say, typical for EU countries) are optimal? too small?

Comment author: Jackercrack 05 November 2014 11:59:39AM * -1 points [-]

You misunderstand me. I am not saying that a large government is definitely better. I'm simply playing devils advocate. I find it worrying that you can't find any examples of good things in larger government though. Do socialised single payer healthcare, lower crime rates due to more police, better roads, better infrastructure, environmental protections and higher quality schools not count as benefit? These are all things that require taxes and can be improved with greater spending on them.

Edit: In retrospect maybe this is how a changed humanity looks already. That seems to fit the reality better.

Comment author: Lumifer 05 November 2014 04:16:21PM 2 points [-]

I find it worrying that you can't find any examples of good things in larger government

Of course I can. Recall me talking about the multidimensionality of government power and how most people (including me) would prefer more in one dimension but less in another. On the whole I would prefer a weaker government, but not necessarily in every single aspect.

However I would stress once again the cost-benefit balance. More is only better is you're below the optimal point, go above it and more will be worse.

Comment author: Jackercrack 05 November 2014 06:36:46PM * -2 points [-]

And neither of us have the evidence required to find this point (if indeed it is just one point instead of several optimal peaks). I'm tapping out. If you have any closing points I'll try to take them into account in my thinking. Regardless, it seems like we agree on more than we disagree on.

Comment author: Azathoth123 09 November 2014 07:29:18AM 1 point [-]

Do socialised single payer healthcare, lower crime rates due to more police, better roads, better infrastructure, environmental protections and higher quality schools not count as benefit?

Some of these things are, some aren't. Let's go through the list:

single payer healthcare,

In the countries I'm most familiar with the socialized health care system is something you want to avoid if you have an alternative.

lower crime rates due to more police, better roads, better infrastructure,

Ok, those are examples. Even if the the crime rates that make more police necessary are due to other stupid government policies.

environmental protections

Well these days a lot of environmental protection laws are insane, as in we must divert water from the farms because if we don't the delta smelt population might be reduced (this is California's actual water policy). Other times they're just excuses for extreme NIMBYism.

higher quality schools

Well, in the US the rule of thumb is that the more control government exercises over schools the worse they are.

Comment author: TheAncientGeek 09 November 2014 11:45:00AM * 2 points [-]

In the countries I'm most familiar with the socialized health care system is something you want to avoid if you have an alternative.l

Kind of trueish but, not in a way that supports your point, Public healthcare systems tend to be run on something of a shoe string, so an Individual who can easily afford private treatment is often better off with that option, However, that does not translate to the total population or average person.. Analogously , the fact that travelling in a chauffeur limo is more pleasant than travelling on a train, for those who can afford it, is no justification for dismantling public transportation systems. And it's not either/or, anyway.

other stupid government policies.

Ok stupid government bad. But what's the relationship between large government and stupid government? Large government has at least the capacity to hire expert consultants, and implement checks and balances. And there's plenty of examples of autocratic rulers who were batshit crazy.

Well these days a lot of environmental protection laws are insane,

In the US? Doesn't generalize.

Well, in the US the rule of thumb is that the more control government exercises over schools the worse they are.

Ditto.

Comment author: Azathoth123 12 November 2014 05:45:04AM 1 point [-]

Public healthcare systems tend to be run on something of a shoe string

Um. Do you mean the money allocated in the budget for the healthcare system or the money that actually trickles down to the actual doctors? Because the former tends to be larger than the latter.

Comment author: TheAncientGeek 12 November 2014 09:59:18AM 1 point [-]

I believe that private healthcare deliverers have nonzero administrative costs as well.

http://epianalysis.wordpress.com/2012/07/18/usversuseurope/

Comment author: Azathoth123 15 November 2014 05:36:54AM 0 points [-]

Yes, but they actually have incentives to keep those costs down.

Comment author: TheAncientGeek 15 November 2014 10:40:08AM 0 points [-]

Taxpayers don't like paying tax, which is the incentive to keep down costs in a public healthcare system, and it works because they are all cheaper than the US system.

continue this thread »

Comment author: [deleted] 15 November 2014 12:35:17PM -1 points [-]

Even the former is much smaller than what you guys pay in the US.

Comment author: wedrifid 13 November 2014 07:57:00AM -1 points [-]

In the countries I'm most familiar with the socialized health care system is something you want to avoid if you have an alternative.

Such things are referred to as 'safety nets' for a reason. Falling from the tightrope still isn't advised.

Jackercrack comments on A discussion of heroic responsibility - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (215)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (215)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login