So What Should The Government Be Doing Then

[EyeKhan]

and instead you got Lewk

I know. He made a good-faith effort though. I read his whole thing, though I didn't really have a comment. He doesn't like hybrid-EVs for some reason. I think its not uncommon, and not without positive results, for the government to put investment and incentives out there to develop certain technologies that would be very good for the future of the nation, and even the world, but might not materialize in an entirely unguided market situation. Not sure why he's got such an issue with that.

[Lewkowski]

I know. He made a good-faith effort though. I read his whole thing, though I didn't really have a comment. He doesn't like hybrid-EVs for some reason. I think its not uncommon, and not without positive results, for the government to put investment and incentives out there to develop certain technologies that would be very good for the future of the nation, and even the world, but might not materialize in an entirely unguided market situation. Not sure why he's got such an issue with that.

It goes back to what people think the role of government should be. I do no think government should be the one to guide society on the "right" path. Choosing economic winners and losers by distorting the market and encouraging/discouraging behavior goes against what I believe the government should be doing. In addition the handout isn't even focused on people who might need help, almost everyone who makes use of that credit will be above average income... and liberal.

[EyeKhan]

It goes back to what people think the role of government should be. I do no think government should be the one to guide society on the "right" path.

There is no other entity that can and will guide society. And doing it via government isn't so bad when its somewhat representative of the public, like ours. In a sense we the poeple are guiding the nation through the government. And what worse way to make certain decisions is there than the market? Think cigarettes. Think fast food. Think television programming. Think viagra. Think disco!!!Its not absurd, its ludicrous to say the market's the best way to shape national policy and goals.

Choosing economic winners and losers by distorting the market and encouraging/discouraging behavior goes against what I believe the government should be doing.

Its not just about economics, though. And its not just about fair competition within our national borders.

In addition the handout isn't even focused on people who might need help, almost everyone who makes use of that credit will be above average income... and liberal.

Its not just about people that need help, either. Its about laying the ground work for the next big global industries and trying to make sure the US economy gets a share of the opportunity despite our dogged refusal to accept what is coming. Otherwise its too late and twenty years down the road we're importing all our cars and exporting all the profits. And don't think every other nation in the world isn't priming the pump in their own economies to get a leg up in the new energy and transportation industries that the world is most certainly going to embrace in the coming years.

[Lewkowski]

There is no other entity that can and will guide society.

Personally I believe in a free society. One where people are only constrained from doing direct harm to other people. I do not want an overlord (be they a despot or a tyranny of the majority) to guide society/ie tell people what they can and can not do. This is a fundamental difference between liberty and control. You would like a benevolent government to guide people to a better life. The issue is - there will never be this Utopian "better" government that can guide people. Corruption will always occur and special interests will always dominate any legislative process. The only solution to avoid corrupt freedom destroying government is to try to limit the government as much as possible and only use coercion to prevent violence/theft/rape/ect. Government is necessary. A necessary evil. While the alternative to any government (pure anarchy) is terrible we should never forget government is and always will be an enemy to freedom.

[Being]

Personally I believe in a free society. One where people are only constrained from doing direct harm to other people. I do not want an overlord (be they a despot or a tyranny of the majority) to guide society/ie tell people what they can and can not do. This is a fundamental difference between liberty and control. You would like a benevolent government to guide people to a better life. The issue is - there will never be this Utopian "better" government that can guide people. Corruption will always occur and special interests will always dominate any legislative process. The only solution to avoid corrupt freedom destroying government is to try to limit the government as much as possible and only use coercion to prevent violence/theft/rape/ect. Government is necessary. A necessary evil. While the alternative to any government (pure anarchy) is terrible we should never forget government is and always will be an enemy to freedom.

So indirect harm shouldn't be hindered by government control?

[Lewkowski]

So indirect harm shouldn't be hindered by government control?

I don't want to get into too many details but it all depends on what you consider indirect harm. For example if I open up a business that undercuts sales for a product you are selling that would be an example of "indirect harm" and the government shouldn't get involved.

Now on the other hand if I run a night club right next to your home that has loud music playing at 3:00 AM that would be something I would consider it "direct harm." Now other people would view direct/indirect in other fashions. And of course there is no easy rule or maxim that can be used to describe every possible scenario but I hope you get the idea.

Now if you are

[GGT]

....Government is necessary. A necessary evil. While the alternative to any government (pure anarchy) is terrible we should never forget government is and always will be an enemy to freedom.

Odd way to use the terms evil and enemy. Government is necessary to protect our freedoms, too.

Sounds like you want to return to the 18th century Wild West with a Sheriff in town.

[EyeKhan]

You would like a benevolent government to guide people to a better life.

Don't tell me what I would like. That's not only totally unnecessary to this discussion, the statement is also incorrect. The reality is that our nation faces problems that can't be solved by individuals exercising their rights in a free market. You know this, its why we have a military and a law & order system. But its not limited to national and personal safety. There's issues of public health as well and an extension of that is the environment, which is why we have the Clean Water act and the Clean Air Act. Beyond that there's economic competition to consider - the system of import duties and import security and consumer protections that keeps individuals safe and our economy safe from unfair foreign competition.

Somewhere in there is the reality that the rest of the world's economies, aided by their governments, are tooling up for the Next Big Thing, which is alternative energy and transportation. Its going to happen and the market isn't going to get us there. If we sit back and wait, we will not be able to compete, we will lose those opportunties to our competitors. THAT'S what HEV incentives - and wind and solar too - are all about. It's what investment in scientific research is all about. Without these things we'll end up a backwater economy.

The issue is - there will never be this Utopian "better" government that can guide people.

No, this has nothing to do with what I was talking about. I don't believe in Utopia. But I believe in a central government leveraging (some of) the collective resources of the nation to help guide and boost the private sector. Sometimes its very necessary.

[Lewkowski]

Don't tell me what I would like. That's not only totally unnecessary to this discussion, the statement is also incorrect. The reality is that our nation faces problems that can't be solved by individuals exercising their rights in a free market.

No, this has nothing to do with what I was talking about. I don't believe in Utopia. But I believe in a central government leveraging (some of) the collective resources of the nation to help guide and boost the private sector. Sometimes its very necessary.

Your preferred role is for government to be the guide. You believe this is necessary, your own words show that you want the government to guide people. Maybe you feel this should be more limited then a command and control run economy but you still believe the government's role is to guide people. Call it "leveraging the collective resources" or guiding its the same thing.

[EyeKhan]

Your preferred role is for government to be the guide. You believe this is necessary, your own words show that you want the government to guide people. Maybe you feel this should be more limited then a command and control run economy but you still believe the government's role is to guide people. Call it "leveraging the collective resources" or guiding its the same thing.

It is and always has been the role of government, it's part of the very basic function of government, and it is necessary. To pretennd it isn't is an idealistic fantasy - a conservative utopia. Like I said, I don't believe in Utopias.

[Lewkowski]

I know. He made a good-faith effort though. I read his whole thing, though I didn't really have a comment. He doesn't like hybrid-EVs for some reason. I think its not uncommon, and not without positive results, for the government to put investment and incentives out there to develop certain technologies that would be very good for the future of the nation, and even the world, but might not materialize in an entirely unguided market situation. Not sure why he's got such an issue with that.

It goes back to what people think the role of government should be. I do no think government should be the one to guide society on the "right" path. Choosing economic winners and losers by distorting the market and encouraging/discouraging behavior goes against what I believe the government should be doing. In addition the handout isn't even focused on people who might need help, almost everyone who makes use of that credit will be above average income... and liberal.