Freedomain Radio

My Brother: You have to adapt to a changing world. The founding fathers couldn't have ever predicted the internet. They couldn't plan for a weapon that could single handedly destroy the world or a group of people who would do anything to destroy this country.

Me: No PEOPLE need and will adapt for changing times. Government not.

My Brother: If one changes so must the other

Me: And how is that?

My Brother: What do you mean?

Me: How is it that government must change with people’s new adaptations?

My Brother: You mean why? And because the people can't make global decisions like nuclear defense

Me: I didn't know aliens were running our country

My Brother: What?

Me: You said people can't make big decisions like that. Last time I checked the government is people.

My Brother: Individual People

Me: Governments are made up of individual people

My Brother: But no individual is in charge

Me: Ok 500 individuals. Mostly made up of old men that aren't specialists in the area of nuclear weapons

My Brother: True but they can allocate resources to the people who do know about it

Me: Or the pricing mechanism can do it 10 times faster and more efficiently and unemotionally

My Brother: But they won't because that is completely reactionary and has no proactive capabilities. The phrase "people pay for what they want not what they need."

Me: So government knows what 300 million individuals need? If people don't care enough to work toward defending themselves then they wouldn't elect politicians who had proactive foreign policy. How people feel about an issue is represented in the things politicians claim they will do to get reelected.

My Brother: True but one person is going to want to pay for the defense of others but to accurately defend themselves they need pooled resources

Me: Well if people are worried about a threat they will voluntarily pool resources. Governments will hold said people at the point of a gun whether they is a real threat or not, and then inefficiently put [the tax money] to use doing something that doesn't even help the problem. Citizens would have an incentive to end it as efficiently and cheaply as possible by getting to the root of the problem. Government doesn't have to since their income doesn't require people liking or supporting what they do

My Brother: I can't argue with that except that because one government exists others must as well in order to defend the larger entity

Me: What larger entity?

My Brother: Other Governments

Me: Having a government in your society is like painting a bulls-eye over the whole country. It tells neighboring countries that you have a disarmed or mostly disarmed populace, an existing tax structure to feed off, and existing military infrastructure to employ in further conquest

My Brother: True. But because of those things they can't attack us

Me: No because of those things they are INCENTIVISED to attack us. They know that the huge expense of invasion is worth the risk because victory means taking advantage of all those things I listed. Without them the risk wouldn't be worth it. It would be like a car company selling all their trucks at 5 dollars a pop. Yeah you'd get a ton of customers storming in but you'd never recover from selling at a price greatly below the equilibrium. Invasion is a risk reward equation just like any other big business decision.

My Brother: Sorry, no I don't think that's an incentive due to the fact that the people wouldn't let themselves be governed by another entity.
 
Me: France did. They didn't care. French government German government what's the difference, they both do the same things (taxation, policing, etc.)

Then he changed the subject

wow you were in complete control of that conversation. . . well done.

rpellow:

wow you were in complete control of that conversation. . . well done.

Thank you! I think it's partly because my brother is a bit more open minded about politics. He will resort to non-answers and irrationality on occasion but overall he isn't locked in to any one specific belief.

masonkiller:

Me: Or the pricing mechanism can do it 10 times faster and more efficiently and unemotionally

My Brother: But they won't because that is completely reactionary and has no proactive capabilities. The phrase "people pay for what they want not what they need." 

As if the "elitists" aren't reacting to the world's events and doing so in accordance to their own self-interest.....

masonkiller:

Me: No because of those things they are INCENTIVISED to attack us. They know that the huge expense of invasion is worth the risk because victory means taking advantage of all those things I listed. Without them the risk wouldn't be worth it. It would be like a car company selling all their trucks at 5 dollars a pop. Yeah you'd get a ton of customers storming in but you'd never recover from selling at a price greatly below the equilibrium. Invasion is a risk reward equation just like any other big business decision.

My Brother: Sorry, no I don't think that's an incentive due to the fact that the people wouldn't let themselves be governed by another entity.

 
Me: France did. They didn't care. French government German government what's the difference, they both do the same things (taxation, policing, etc.) 

I especially liked that point.  Nationalists who claim to "love" their government or people who were born in their country could have all different people in office, doing the same things, and they wouldn't notice the difference.  All in all, you did great.  I'm sorry to hear that he changed the subject.

I don't take any credit for the France thing I remember Stefan talked about it in I think his World Wars video. But thanks . Hopefully I can continue the debate with him soon.