Tribes and Nation States (reject, paradise, evolution, reform, Roman)

[Sunstone]

During our evolution, bands and tribes took care of their own. But bands and tribes have now been replaced in much of the world by nation states. And most nation states have implemented social welfare programs to take care of their less fortunate members.

Is this a proper role for the nation state? Or should nation states be completely out of the business of providing welfare?

[michel]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

During our evolution, bands and tribes took care of their own. But bands and tribes have now been replaced in much of the world by nation states. And most nation states have implemented social welfare programs to take care of their less fortunate members.

Is this a proper role for the nation state? Or should nation states be completely out of the business of providing welfare?

That is interesting, because I remember posting something about this in another thread. The emmergence of ethnic minorities in England (and presumably in the states) must have highlighted the difference between th 'Civilized (ahem) western family, and those of the ethnic minorities.

Here, the family unit has become far less cohesive; when something goes wrong with a family member (more often than not I would guess), the State has to help.

With the ethnic minorities, I think their culture leads them to 'do the job themselves'. So I guess we now have a mixture of the two outlooks.

When you think of the number of families who kick their teenage children out of the home as soon as they are able to (usually simply because the parents can no longer cope); the incidence of that in England is quite high (sixteen years old and up).

[Darkdale]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

During our evolution, bands and tribes took care of their own. But bands and tribes have now been replaced in much of the world by nation states. And most nation states have implemented social welfare programs to take care of their less fortunate members.

Is this a proper role for the nation state? Or should nation states be completely out of the business of providing welfare?

I would say that states should get out of the welfare business. The cost just doesn't equal the results. Government should protect the people from institutional corporate oppression, but only at the most basic level (which means not infringing upon property rights and the free movement of wealth). However, companies should not be allowed to defraud its' employees (ENRON). Government simply isn't an effective social or economic mechanism. People do better in relative freedom.

[Seyorni]

On the other hand, Darkdale, when government was more laissez-faire, you had the rich and powerful exploiting the poor, leading to reform movements if you were lucky, and revolutions if you were not.

People are rapacious, they dehumanize and prey upon those who are not part of their tribe or in-group.
They'll sacrifice the general good for personal gain, and long term, sustainable benefits for immediate gain. And our short-sightedness is glaringly obvious from even a casual glance at our environmental record. Give people perfect license to use their property as they see fit and we'll soon desertify the whole planet.

[Darkdale]

Originally Posted by Seyorni

On the other hand, Darkdale, when government was more laissez-faire, you had the rich and powerful exploiting the poor, leading to reform movements if you were lucky, and revolutions if you were not.

People are rapacious, they dehumanize and prey upon those who are not part of their tribe or in-group.
They'll sacrifice the general good for personal gain, and long term, sustainable benefits for immediate gain. And our short-sightedness is glaringly obvious from even a casual glance at our environmental record. Give people perfect license to use their property as they see fit and we'll soon desertify the whole planet.

I don't see any reason why a government can't both protect the people from corporate oppression and allow people their liberties. The goal of society should be to make freedom work and it's not nearly as complicated as people make it seem. Of course, you do need one thing to make it work: Excellent Education. Freedom only works if the people can work and the people can't work without good education. But, again, I don't see what's so complicated about that. Good education, lots and lots of freedom for business and individuals... everyone has opportunity. Let people keep their money and do what they want so long as they don't hurt anyone else. Sure, it won't create a perfect society, but it will create a free society and I'd rather struggle a bit in freedom than be a well paid slave. But, I understand... people are greedy and lazy. It's a nasty combination lol. People are more than happy to be a well paid slave. But we should build societies based on the values of the greedy and lazy. We should build a society based on the values of free workers.

[Seyorni]

So your advocating wage-and-hour laws, occupation safety and health laws and mandatory public education? Your libertarian paradise is starting to sound a wee bit socialist.....

[Sunstone]

Originally Posted by Seyorni

On the other hand, Darkdale, when government was more laissez-faire, you had the rich and powerful exploiting the poor, leading to reform movements if you were lucky, and revolutions if you were not.

I think people forget that the laissez-faire approach was tried, failed, and was rejected. Unfortunately, it was then romanticized in the writings of Ayn Rand and others. So, many people have no idea these days that it only led to reforms (in some countries) and revolutions (in other countries). There is no reason why we should repeat the past, except our own ignorance of it.

[Seyorni]

As you mentioned in your initial post, Sunstone, tribes and bands often provide good social support systems -- as long as they remained tribes and bands. It is a basic tenet of anthropology, though, that when the group grows to be more than about 150 persons the communal harmony begins to break down. This is an unfortunate psychological artifact from our formative years as hunter-gatherer bands during the pleistocene

Large societies need a certain degree of formal structure and coercive authority.

[Darkdale]

Originally Posted by Seyorni

So your advocating wage-and-hour laws, occupation safety and health laws and mandatory public education? Your libertarian paradise is starting to sound a wee bit socialist.....

Not at all. I don't believe in a mandatory public education system, just an excellent education system.... I don't even care if they are private. Now, if you want to opt out of the education system, I think government should provide free Trade-Skill education.

I'm not sure I agree with wage or hour laws at all. Occupational safety and health laws seem necessary for protecting citizens.