They have this weird modern obsession with "Volunteerism". As if in any point in human history people could just escape the social contract that we were all born into.
I had a conversation with an ultra-Republican a couple of years ago, where he was talking about how he thought the government shouldn't really do much of anything.
I brought up roads. I said, we might disagree on exactly where to build roads, whether to build roads or railways, etc. But did we both agree that we needed public roads that anyone could use? And who would build them if not the government?
He suggested rich people would build them because they'd need to supply their businesses and bring customers and whatnot.
I asked, if I were rich and built roads, how would that solve the problem of needing public roads? Those are just my roads, right?
Nope, according to him, I'd let anyone use them because I needed customers and supplies and to be able to get to my store, so it wouldn't make sense to keep the roads to myself.
I asked, if I owned a business and I paid for all the roads I needed, what's to stop another business from setting up right next door, making use of my roads, and then undercut me on price? And knowing that could happen, wouldn't I refuse to build roads?
Well, he said, maybe I could form some kind of small business alliance, and we could all chip in for roads, and all agree to let each other use those roads.
I asked, what's to stop someone from not joining the alliance and mooch off the roads? Would it be somehow compulsory that you had to join the alliance, and that you had to pay your share?
He guessed so. It didn't seem fair to let some people mooch off of other people's hard work and investment. So yes, everyone had to join, and everyone had to pay their fair share.
I wondered if different people might have to pay different amounts. For example, if you're a big business that made a lot of money from using the roads, might you have to pay more than a normal person who didn't make money from the roads at all.
He had to think about that one. He wasn't sure a normal person should have to pay for the roads at all, if they weren't using them to make money. I reminded him, if they use the roads to get to work, they're sort of using the roads to make money. He liked that. Everyone should pay something, but normal people shouldn't have to pay very much. We agreed that everyone, including normal people with jobs, should join this business alliance.
And what if there were disputes? I asked, would there be some kind of... governing body in this business alliance? Someone to decide what the rules are, judge when people had followed the rules, and then enforce the rules when someone broke them?
Yes, he agreed.
How do you think that governing body could be formed? Maybe the members could vote on who was in the governing body?
Yes, that made a lot of sense to him.
The whole conversation was more contentious than I'm making it sounds. On each point, he was clearly expecting me to say his business alliance wouldn't work, and seemed suspiciously pleased with himself that we'd kept finding some compromise, and I kept agreeing that this business alliance was a good idea. But then he was visibly surprised and disappointed when I revealed that we'd just reinvented government, and everything that he was suggesting this "business alliance" do was how the government already worked.
great_gape on July 13rd, 2020 at 23:17 UTC »
Not at all. He's suggesting that poor people pay into a gofundme because the donor class already has their own private ICU.
Assistedsarge on July 13rd, 2020 at 23:55 UTC »
They have this weird modern obsession with "Volunteerism". As if in any point in human history people could just escape the social contract that we were all born into.
fence_neighbour on July 14th, 2020 at 02:06 UTC »
I had a conversation with an ultra-Republican a couple of years ago, where he was talking about how he thought the government shouldn't really do much of anything.
I brought up roads. I said, we might disagree on exactly where to build roads, whether to build roads or railways, etc. But did we both agree that we needed public roads that anyone could use? And who would build them if not the government?
He suggested rich people would build them because they'd need to supply their businesses and bring customers and whatnot.
I asked, if I were rich and built roads, how would that solve the problem of needing public roads? Those are just my roads, right?
Nope, according to him, I'd let anyone use them because I needed customers and supplies and to be able to get to my store, so it wouldn't make sense to keep the roads to myself.
I asked, if I owned a business and I paid for all the roads I needed, what's to stop another business from setting up right next door, making use of my roads, and then undercut me on price? And knowing that could happen, wouldn't I refuse to build roads?
Well, he said, maybe I could form some kind of small business alliance, and we could all chip in for roads, and all agree to let each other use those roads.
I asked, what's to stop someone from not joining the alliance and mooch off the roads? Would it be somehow compulsory that you had to join the alliance, and that you had to pay your share?
He guessed so. It didn't seem fair to let some people mooch off of other people's hard work and investment. So yes, everyone had to join, and everyone had to pay their fair share.
I wondered if different people might have to pay different amounts. For example, if you're a big business that made a lot of money from using the roads, might you have to pay more than a normal person who didn't make money from the roads at all.
He had to think about that one. He wasn't sure a normal person should have to pay for the roads at all, if they weren't using them to make money. I reminded him, if they use the roads to get to work, they're sort of using the roads to make money. He liked that. Everyone should pay something, but normal people shouldn't have to pay very much. We agreed that everyone, including normal people with jobs, should join this business alliance.
And what if there were disputes? I asked, would there be some kind of... governing body in this business alliance? Someone to decide what the rules are, judge when people had followed the rules, and then enforce the rules when someone broke them?
Yes, he agreed.
How do you think that governing body could be formed? Maybe the members could vote on who was in the governing body?
Yes, that made a lot of sense to him.
The whole conversation was more contentious than I'm making it sounds. On each point, he was clearly expecting me to say his business alliance wouldn't work, and seemed suspiciously pleased with himself that we'd kept finding some compromise, and I kept agreeing that this business alliance was a good idea. But then he was visibly surprised and disappointed when I revealed that we'd just reinvented government, and everything that he was suggesting this "business alliance" do was how the government already worked.