This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
What is the next big essential service governments in the future will provide for their citizens?
The concept of free education was revolutionary, and eventually became an essential service provided to every citizen at a fairly low to zero cost. After free education in my perspective the next service to become fairly low or even zero cost has been Health care. Canada, Europe have Australia have some form of Universal Healthcare system. Within the next century I hope to see most if not all countries providing some form of universal healthcare system.
Having said that, what is next? Education, Health care...could it be Food? There are already many government programs subsiding certain types of foods in certain countries. Free food in my opinion is the next big revolutionary idea. Providing free food in a sense can lead to a better control on diet based diseases.
Another essential service that comes to my mind is housing. Again there are subsidised housing projects for the less fortunate etc. But, a large scale project providing free housing funded by governmental systems could eliminate things like poverty, homelessness etc.
Things like these will raise taxes beyond an imaginable percent but, I believe it could provide a better society. It will also re distribute the wealth and decrease the ever increasing gap between the rich and the poor.
paul McKinley
Siobhan Watters
What is it that you're working so hard to safeguard? Calling it freedom is a joke. Maybe our feelings of self-entitlement and self-absorption are natural, but then how civilized or enlightened have we really become? Humility is an improvement on the human condition, and something we desperately need if we are going to address the future thoughtfully and realistically.
Full disclosure: I am working class-born, raised on welfare, paid my way through university, and am a tax-paying home owner. I have a job. I believe in being critical of all levels of organization, right down to the organization of my own thoughts. I don't believe good fortune brought me to the time and place I was born and which allowed me to survive and strive for more, while my mother struggled; history and human choice are responsible for my presence here. While some allow fate or fortune to explain their prosperity, I will never let a mythical force, or a conception of historical events as natural or linear, take the place of my own will and accountability in this world.
Revett Eldred 10+
Siobhan Watters
Another disclosure: I don't consider the earth to be our personal playgrounds and Walmarts, so when I talk about the disparity between labour put in and wealth reaped, I refer to human arrogance about resources. It's all in the language: we DEMAND, which assumes we are entitled to everything we desire. Many people in this world will never have their demands met because of where economic history has left them.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Revett Eldred 10+
lynn eschbach 30+
account removed
Of course, free food comes to mind. It is a basic human need and so it should be transformed into a right. Everybody would be entitled to basic nutrient-rich food portion per day. And it would be doable because of huge food surpluses.
Revett Eldred 10+
Aldous Blair
To begin, an oligopoly is a market which is dominated by a few sellers who control a disproportionately high percentage of sales, and may then influence prices. There is no way Apple and WalMart cannot be considered oligopolies in their respective markets, that's a point I've made already.
No-one can say WalMart competes on a 'free and open playing field' and keep a straight face.
Second, I agree it is wholly misleading to refer to these services as free, and I am equally disgusted by politicians' shameless abuse of taxpayers money; of those citizens trapped on welfare who until recently in Britain would LOSE money by getting a job and earning a living... but rejecting government and taxes is not the answer.
The more Canadian politicians feel like they're not being watched by us citizens, the more sloppy they get. The more of us actually pay attention and vote accordingly, the more carefully they will tread. In the MP expenses scandal in London, there was a direct correlation with how much an MP miss-spent, and how 'safe' their seat was.
You also refer to my "blind anti-corporate, anti-wealth ideology" and later to "[me] and [my] socialist buddies". Was it my generalisation that seemingly offended you? If so than I apologise, libertarians are individuals with varying degrees of pro-market anti-tax thought.
At the end of your comment you reject 'free' services for the 'less fortunate'. Does that mean you think they are less deserving? You acknowledge they may not necessarily be 'dumber' or 'lazier', which is interesting.
Finally, to answer your first question literally, I am a nineteen-year-old student of economics, history, political science, and moral philosophy. My opinions are not based on ideology, but on what I have observed and experienced. If your opinions are based entirely on what you have observed and experienced, I can object to your opinions alone.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
putting quotation marks around free won't give you an out of jail card. the point was that these are NOT free. it is nice to give to the needy. but it is NOT nice to take from me, and give that to the needy. if you are such a nice individual, give yourself, and let me decide if i want to give, and if so, in what way.
so you are 19, and a student. then i have some homework for you, in line with your studies:
ludwig von mises: human action
ludwig von mises: theory and history
maybe if you study it, you will understand that free market believers are not antisocial. plus a bonus about the monopoly issue:
dominick t armentano: antitrust: the case for repeal
maybe you can start with this. it is lighter.
Ibthaj Khilji
account removed
J. W. (Monty) Montgomery
I am all for the people revolting against governments that hoard the wealth, but that is a far cry from asking the government to provide free food for the masses.
Vincine Fallica
I don’t think you can separate the political system from the economic system. Everybody pays for everything, somehow. Via taxes or trading labor or investment, etc. The question is which ‘ism provides the most bang for the buck. I think that depends on the circumstances and nature of the population at the time and place being considered.
Communism has been called the perfect system. You will find it works wherever you have perfect people; monasteries, convents, some communes, etc. How many places have perfect people? Capitalism is not without its faults either.
In short, which essential service should be the provided next, assuming there should be an essential service provided next, depends on the situation and needs of the population in question.
Dylan Odd
Anon Eemuhs
We have advanced past the age of the cold war, and international espionage or war does not make economic sense. The only true threat to countries now comes from minority groups that we either know about but are unable to contain, or don't know about.
As a new group of technologically savvy voters steps into our country, we will be learning about scandals about as fast as they pop up, so there is little sense in trying to hide it.
A transparent government will at first shock, but will require people to take action and be responsible for their choices. This in turn will lead to (in my progressive idealistic mind) a nation that has understanding and ability to change the nation how they see fit, whilst encouraging involvement in the government itself.
Thank you for your time.
Aldous Blair
If you do not think public internet is possible, know that it is already a reality in Finland.
Gavin Thomas
Krisztián Pintér 200+
so my proposal: put crime in government's hands. let then fail that! let theft and bank robbery a government business! they will fail, and it will be good for all of us.
Revett Eldred 10+
I don't care how much governments spend handling unbelievable crises like the one now in Japan, and I will happily pay my fair share of whatever it costs, but when it comes to "free" food for the masses or other similar harebrained schemes, please keep your hands out of my pockets!
Donald Thompson
Aldous Blair
I don't pretend to live in a fantasy land where politicians don't steal taxpayers money and squabble and spend inefficiently.
Nor do I pretend to live in a fantasy land where a political society can fully function when successful citizens claim the money they make is the result of their effort alone, and give nothing back to the society that shaped them as human beings.
How unequivocally irresponsible and selfish.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
but in fact, state is not the society, society is not the state. state is an organization.
thinking that the state is working for you is close to delusional. even if it aimed to, the success is questionable. the only question is whether we want to make it better, or give up and try something else.
Revett Eldred 10+
Revett Eldred 10+
Donald Thompson
I wonder,was it youthful philosophical indiscretions that led to to the gulags and concentration camps, or was it a bunch of smart old guys that did all the heavy lifting?
Bill Harrison 10+
No one is talking about taking your money, Revett, unless you're an uber-millionaire. When people talk about tax rates, we're talking about the top marginal tax rate. We're saying that the marginal utility of a dollar beyond some point is so low, that you don't need that money, and you don't have a right to deprive another person of making a legitimate claim upon the allocation of scarce resources.
So, is your income over 2 million dollars per year? There is no reason for CEO's and bankers to make as much as they do. The founding fathers in the US mistrusted concentration of power, so they created a separation of powers, yet there is no corresponding check upon the wealth oligarchy in this country. As a result, we haven't prosecuted the financial criminals who've destroyed millions of lives.
The wealthy benefit enormously from living in our society. They benefit from our laws, our infrastructure, our educated workforce, our technology. Many benefit from years of publicly funded basic research, and then take it private just before it becomes profitable. But then they refuse to acknowledge the contribution - they did it all on their own! Meanwhile they use an Internet the government invented, they've been vaccinated by people they don't know and have never met, etc.
The creation of digital money at a particular rate for the poor, and the compensatory destruction of unneeded money of the uber-wealthy, solves the problem of the "leftist utopian rat hole," because the claims are redistributed evenly for everyone. Yes, I am Robin Hood.
Donald Thompson
Ibthaj Khilji
Krisztián Pintér 200+
even if a CEO earns usd 5 million, it is HIS money to do whatever he wants. and if he consumes ALL of it, then he is a jerk, but it is still okay, as it is his, and already worked for it! he created much more wealth to the society by delivering cheaper and better products for the masses. that was the ethical reasoning.
there is a practical reasoning too. people tend not to consume usd 5 million a year. a part of this money would end up being invested to business. if you take it away, and give to someone, you put money from pocket of a successful man to a less successful, probably wasting it.
and there is a theoretical problem with your argument too. you compare the marginal utility of a dollar for a rich and for a poor. but it is impossible. you can't compare internal valuations between different people. one person wants a new pair of shoes, the other wants to start a new business he has in mind for a time. which dollar is more important for the these people? how do you know that the poor guy wants the shoes more than the rich guy wants the new business? how do you know which will create more satisfaction?
Bill Harrison 10+
Is all money rightfully earned by contributing value to society?
Do markets fail, ever?
What do you make of the fact that millions of tons of food go to waste in the US every year, yet there are millions of people who go hungry?
Is wanting to allocate social resources (such as food) from where they are not needed to where they are most needed zero-sum thinking or positive-sum thinking?
Does changing the quantity of money change the value of money in ways that can be influenced by the Federal Reserve, or is the value entirely up to "market forces"?
Is the creation of digital money at the same rate by everyone less acceptable than the creation of digital money for banking cartels, where it is then lent back to the public at interest?
Is the Pareto optimal economic outcome always the best economic outcome?
Should slavery still be allowed? Or do human rights trump property rights occasionally?
Why did the founding fathers insist upon checks and balances with a separation of powers in this country? What is the check upon the power of wealth? Should bankers be Free to do whatever they like?
Is it possible that we live, not in a democracy, but in an oligarchy, such that corporations, the financial industry, and bankers receive welfare from the government in the form of taxpayer dollars?
(http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51458.html)
Suppose that we are in a liquidity trap, such that wealthy people value holding onto cash more than they value investing it. What should be done to stimulate job growth? Should we give more money to people who don't need it?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-13/rich-americans-save-money-from-tax-cuts-instead-of-spending-moody-s-says.html
Do we want people in the US who care more about money than they do about our country?
Isn't the decentralization of money creation a libertarian idea?
Matthew Stingel
Rasmus Andersson
Well, that simply isn't true. Take Sweden for example, we're doing great even in these hard times and we do have universal healthcare.
Besides, he isn't talking about any country in particular so I don't know why you're so up in arms about it. There are definitely a lot of people that do think that redistribution is a good thing, and I certainly believe that the world would be a better place of there are more choices of countries to live in that only capitalist states with a small government.
Paula Lovell
Revett Eldred 10+
Aldous Blair
Apple, after failing to successfully sue a smaller mp3 manufacturer they accused of market mimicking, took matters into their own hands by threatening to remove their products from any stores that continued to sell products of their rival.
As problematic as our healthcare is, any attempt to replace it with a private, more market-based system would spark outrage as it has Britons terrified with their Conservative coalition. With public tax-payed healthcare comes a national agreement that access to healthcare should not depend on your ability to pay.
Mark Meyer 10+
Naturally emphasis should be on wise spending, not just spending, but pushing people to choose one radically polarized position or the other, ignores the fact that government is a tool, which can and has been used to effectively. The market is also a tool, which can be used effectively, but is not magic and doesn't work for everything. Both sides make valid points: government programs are not free, and very few if anyone can attribute their success solely to their own hard work. What this argument desperately needs is for serious people with moderate views to stand up and bring a little sanity to the table.
victor saltykov 10+
WILL network monitoring.
I WANT flying cars.
Debra Smith 200+
Ibthaj Khilji
Patricia Doykos
Ibthaj Khilji
Ed Schulte 50+
Northwest Territories elects members to the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories under a non-partisan system known as consensus government. The election only decides who represents each district. The newly elected members of the assembly convene after the election to vote amongst themselves to decide which members become part of the Executive Council.[1] This system of government has evolved in the Northwest Territories since 1870.
Ibthaj Khilji
Ed Schulte 50+
.the reason the consensus method is effective is because Ego is recognized and contained ....the size of the group doesn't matter .. one or the entire Globe....There will be no Global advancement until Dialog becomes the norm and not debate. This is often demonstrated right here on this TED form.
This is seen as Self Evident among the Japanese right now and how they are dealing with their situation ...Its choosing Power of Presence rather then Force of Ego.
Gavin Thomas
Ibthaj Khilji
Debra Smith 200+