size of government and the competence of government

[Jimbean]

You don't have to exert force to collectivize, there is something called incentives.

It might be pragmatic to implement a civil(unarmed) service requirement for people of qualifying age and education. Say at 30-65, 1-2 year service duration.

I am assuming that you are qualifying people in the private sector as well, since you did not say public. Simply having a public sector is also a form of forced collectivism since people do not choose to pay direct taxes (although in theory we could pay for it in indirect taxes).

[mu4]

I am assuming that you are qualifying people in the private sector as well, since you did not say public. Simply having a public sector is also a form of forced collectivism since people do not choose to pay direct taxes (although in theory we could pay for it in indirect taxes).

People did choose to form a public sector a long time ago and that's that, you might not like it, but that's you. Every decision a individual or a group of individuals make is going to have effects in the future which will not be someone else's choosing. That's just the way it is.

If you dissolved the public sector then you will be forcing people who want a public sector to not have one, and that's forced individualism, which is not necessary better.

[Jimbean]

People did choose to form a public sector a long time ago and that's that, you might not like it, but that's you. Every decision a individual or a group of individuals make is going to have effects in the future which will not be someone else's choosing. That's just the way it is.

This is called a social dilemma. People wanted a large public sector as a result of bad philosophy, that being defining liberty as positive (government/collectivist enabled) rather than negative (the absence of initiated force and fraud).

If you dissolved the public sector then you will be forcing people who want a public sector to not have one...

Actually this would result as an absence of initial force (since individuals would not be robbed in order to give to someone else) and allow people to be responsible for themselves. With the exception of market failures (i.e. providing for goods that the market does not have an incentive to do, such as traffic lights) and providing a protection service for people (as well as the extensions, such as people's property) absence of government allows for economic growth. Given some time, this condition improves the standard of living to everyone, thus reducing the need for charity.

...forced individualism...

I laughed at this.

[mu4]

This is called a social dilemma. People wanted a large public sector as a result of bad philosophy, that being defining liberty as positive (government/collectivist enabled) rather than negative (the absence of initiated force and fraud).

Actually this would result as an absence of initial force (since individuals would not be robbed in order to give to someone else) and allow people to be responsible for themselves. With the exception of market failures (i.e. providing for goods that the market does not have an incentive to do, such as traffic lights) and providing a protection service for people (as well as the extensions, such as people's property) absence of government allows for economic growth. Given some time, this condition improves the standard of living to everyone, thus reducing the need for charity.

I don't know many people who "want large public sectors" for its own sake, that's a straw-man, they want effective governance, freedom, quality of life, size is not a singular concern for many people as it is for you. Even the fact that their sweet-spot for government size is bigger than yours does not mean they want "large" public sector, they just want something larger than yours personal ideas about it. And consequently, people that want small government may not have the competency to implement small government and instead inflate the size of government due to mismanagement. This is largely what happens when people who function only based on ideology get in charge. To me individualism and collectivism aren't meaningful when used as opposing ideological talking points, humans are social animals with identity, which means humans are individuals that form collectives. Many humans want to maintain their identity while being part of a society. How to maintain one's identity and individuality, how to cooperate with others in society are far more important questions than the should or should not. If you don't want to cooperate in society, the system can and often will allow for that especially in modern democracies, however to impose that on the whole of society is not your right or privilege. You may believe certain things strongly, but that neither makes them right or implementable.

I laughed at this.

Why do you laugh at this, ostracization, exile, jail, solitary confinement all isolate the individual from a society. You can also voluntarily choose to leave a society or isolate yourself from society as well. Go join a commune, go live off the land or in the woods, it matters very little to me. However, I do not want to see any such policies implemented as central policy, as that is the form of tyranny. In effect you're advocating the overturning of existing society and forcing everyone to live under one singular philosophical ideal and that being the only way they can live, that is as a definition the face of tyranny. I prefer a society where individuals can debate over the short term management of society based on whatever philosophical ideals they happen to adopt.

Not everyone wants total individualism, not even you, because for you to accomplish your goals, you would need to group with like minded individuals. And that group would come into conflict with other groups which will fight for what they believe in. Winning this political conflict would result in some level of organization, which will seek to perpetuate its existence.

I haven't heard really any policy changes that would really be implementable from you, is sounds like a lot of rhetoric and wishful thinking. Now matter what people do, there will be undesired consequences, and that won't go away.

[Jimbean]

I don't know many people who "want large public sectors" for its own sake, that's a straw-man,...

That was not designed to be a straw man fallacy.

...they want effective governance, freedom, quality of life, size is not a singular concern for many people as it is for you. Even the fact that their sweet-spot for government size is bigger than yours does not mean they want "large" public sector, they just want something larger than yours personal ideas about it. And consequently, people that want small government may not have the competency to implement small government and instead inflate the size of government due to mismanagement. This is largely what happens when people who function only based on ideology get in charge.

It may look this way, but this supposed ideology is actually a reflection of reality.

...humans are social animals with identity, which means humans are individuals that form collectives. Many humans want to maintain their identity while being part of a society. How to maintain one's identity and individuality, how to cooperate with others in society are far more important questions than the should or should not. If you don't want to cooperate in society, the system can and often will allow for that especially in modern democracies...

I agree with this so far, but...

however to impose that on the whole of society is not your right or privilege.

I would say that a person does not have the right to use initial force on me to do anything.

If a person needs to do something, a group of people can use social pressure on him or her if he or she is weak minded enough to go along with it, otherwise that person is taking full responsibility for that person.

Why do you laugh at this, ostracization, exile, jail, solitary confinement all isolate the individual from a society. You can also voluntarily choose to leave a society or isolate yourself from society as well. Go join a commune, go live off the land or in the woods, it matters very little to me. However, I do not want to see any such policies implemented as central policy, as that is the form of tyranny. In effect you're advocating the overturning of existing society and forcing everyone to live under one singular philosophical ideal and that being the only way they can live, that is as a definition the face of tyranny. I prefer a society where individuals can debate over the short term management of society based on whatever philosophical ideals they happen to adopt.

Not everyone wants total individualism, not even you, because for you to accomplish your goals, you would need to group with like minded individuals. And that group would come into conflict with other groups which will fight for what they believe in. Winning this political conflict would result in some level of organization, which will seek to perpetuate its existence.

People will socialize because they have the incentive to, or in other words, people socialize from their own sake and not for anyone else. Having a free market economy is not the same thing as social isolation, in fact, it is just the opposite, just like when you facilitate trade by removing restrictions and subsidies.

I haven't heard really any policy changes that would really be implementable from you...

That is because I have not suggested any.

[Jimbean]

People participate in society as individuals for their own sake. People improve on their social competence (this involves all socionics functions, not just Fe and Fi) for themselves, which in turn spills over as a benefit to others as well. That does not mean that a person is doing so with the intention of influencing another's convictions; in such a case that person is acting as an external authority. A person will want to change their convictions closer to reality when it is clarified to them. When a person's philosophy, convictions, principles, values, worldview, life mission, goals, and plans are grounded in objective reality, that person will produce productive results that will also by default have positive consequenses for other people. The end result will vary from person to person according to what their values/convitions are (evaluative relationship with reality, Fi and Fe), on their pain and frustration tolerance (discipline/focus), and on their overal biological energy and intensity (which I think it is at least partly genetic).

When a person is fully grounded in reality (in socionics, my theory is that there would be enough information flowed in each function [facet of reality] that would form rational principles in every aspect of a person's relationship with reality), that person will have no need for external authority, and will socialize on the basis of their incentives.

[Jimbean]

(get ready for an ILE longshot, bull theory )

And then the demand for government will also decline, and therefore, so will the supply.

[Jimbean]

Anyone, feel free to criticize, I am actually gaining insights from them.

thank you.