Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Davidfak]

• <a href="https://www.port... by Davidfak
  [Today at 03:43:48 PM]
• <a href="https://www.port... by Davidfak
  [Today at 02:43:57 PM]
• ???????? ??????? by Davidfak
  [Today at 12:45:11 PM]
• ?????????? ??????? ????? ... by Antoniogeb
  [Yesterday at 04:10:53 PM]
• 2012 Concert Thread by cvWeils
  [Yesterday at 10:42:43 AM]
• ??????????? ? ????????? by Bogdaneqd
  [May 01, 2024, 06:46:38 AM]

Members

• Total Members: 4946
• Latest: agrohimefx

Stats

• Total Posts: 129602
• Total Topics: 7175
• Online Today: 140
• Online Ever: 1013
• (January 12, 2023, 01:18:11 AM)

[Vespertine]

CM, I think the problem I'm having with this is your point #3.  I just don't think I can agree that "Government is affected by how strong the economy of the country is. (Because it derives it's power from taxation...)" is a good underlying assumption.  Take the USSR and China as examples.  Yes, China's economy is booming at the moment, but let's go to back before that.  Both China and the USSR were considered superpowers, right along with the US.  At the very least, they both had/have the capability to massive amounts of damage to the world (with weapons).  At the same time, neither country (from my sheltered perspective) had a robust economy.  Bottom line, I think that, yes, a strong economy can affect a government.  I cannot agree that a government is made strong by a strong economy.

[Evonus]

But, Evonus says that government grants you your rights.   Or, I'm sure he would if he thought through his basic arguments and the foundation there-of.  HaHa! I kill me!  Evonus thinking through things?  Having a foundation?  LOL!

I think that's part of the problem, these days.  Too many people think that governments' purpose is to grant you your rights.  They don't realize that governments' primary effect is limitations on your rights.

People are naturally completely free. People are also naturally evil, which will leads them to do what all animals do, kill off others to ensure their own descendants to survive. So in order for people to protect themselves from their neighbors they made a contract with him, and all others within a national boundary for mutual protection. Blah Blah, I'm repeating what milfist said. Now to the point. In order for the protection people have to give up some freedoms, the freedoms that are still retained are called rights, but it is the government that decides which freedoms are given up for either protection of the people, protect itself, or both. Technically, the government could strip us all of all freedom, to ensure it's permanent safety, but that would be a miserable existence, and so democratic governments tend not to do that. Instead they allow us to keep some freedoms, and thus they give us rights.

CM, I think the problem I'm having with this is your point #3.  I just don't think I can agree that "Government is affected by how strong the economy of the country is. (Because it derives it's power from taxation...)" is a good underlying assumption.  Take the USSR and China as examples.  Yes, China's economy is booming at the moment, but let's go to back before that.  Both China and the USSR were considered superpowers, right along with the US.  At the very least, they both had/have the capability to massive amounts of damage to the world (with weapons).  At the same time, neither country (from my sheltered perspective) had a robust economy.  Bottom line, I think that, yes, a strong economy can affect a government.  I cannot agree that a government is made strong by a strong economy.

Not to mention the fact that the U.S. is probably the most fiscally powerful country in the world or at least very close to the top, yet it has one of the lower standards of living of all the worlds developed nations. I mean it's not a huge disparity like things were in the USSR, but its still noticable, how it's barely beating Ireland, which by no means has a much production and wealth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_of_living_in_the_United_States
http://www.timbro.com/euvsusa/
http://www.photius.com/rankings/gdp_2050_projection.html

[Crystalmonkey]

CM, I think the problem I'm having with this is your point #3.  I just don't think I can agree that "Government is affected by how strong the economy of the country is. (Because it derives it's power from taxation...)" is a good underlying assumption.  Take the USSR and China as examples.  Yes, China's economy is booming at the moment, but let's go to back before that.  Both China and the USSR were considered superpowers, right along with the US.  At the very least, they both had/have the capability to massive amounts of damage to the world (with weapons).  At the same time, neither country (from my sheltered perspective) had a robust economy.  Bottom line, I think that, yes, a strong economy can affect a government.  I cannot agree that a government is made strong by a strong economy.

I often hear talk about the Soviet Union collapsing because we essentially "outspent" them.

Given that we are a capitalist society, we rely on money to get things done. If the government wants to purchase a tank, they can't just make one and tell the workers to fuck off, they have to pay them. In order to do research, they also need money. Heck, in order to operate they need money.

The economic systems of China and the Soviet Union were, to my knowledge, Communist. (Not the ideal communism, but a weird mutation...) That means the government can get away with a lot more even if the economy isn't doing so well. (You may ask yourself, then, why we prefer Capitalism over Communism, all I can do is point out that Communism is generally less productive, and you generally have less creature comforts, among other things...)

Edit: If the USSR or China had been Capitalistic, and their economy was as low as when they were communists, they probably wouldn't have been able to develop like they have.