Please do not discuss your opinions; no one should know what you believe. Adopt the site's tone and style: simple, blunt, precise, direct, plain, to-the-point. Include only the absolutely necessary context, and eliminate jargon. Content that is convincing, rhetorical, persuasive, elegant, evocative or embellished may be removed.
Governments have deliberately achieved positive outcomes more efficiently than would have occurred in the absence of governments
| Governments have deliberately achieved positive outcomes more efficiently than would have occurred in the absence of governments | |
|---|---|
| Subjects | |
| Government |
|
| Linking arguments | |
| Capitalism leads inevitably to state intervention Governments are always exploitative Societies should implement laissez-faire economics
| |
Supporting arguments
Governments have been successful at ameliorated the effects of business cycles. [1]
Laissez-faire economics results in wealth inequality, which is a negative outcome that can be prevented by government action. [2]
- Related argument: Societies should strive to ameliorate wealth inequality.
Without government regulations, business will produce externalities, which are costs borne by third parties. This is an unfair and immoral outcome that can be prevented by the judicious use of government action. [3]
- Related argument: The enforcement of private property rights can effectively adjudicate externalities.
- Related argument: Externalities are too ubiquitous to be effectively prevented or punished.
Governments provide most of the resources to feed the poor, take care of the sick and elderly, protect children and otherwise care for needy people. Governmental efforts in these areas are successful. [4]
Governments abolished child labor with some success. [5]
Governments abolished slavery with some success. [6]
Governments are successful at ensuring the safety and efficacy of medicines and medical treatments. Purely private markets could not be as successful. [7]
Governments are successful at reducing workplace injuries. [8]
Governments have been successful at keeping unsafe products out of markets. [9]
Government-run deposit insurance has been successful at preventing banking instability. [10]
Government-run public health programs have successful saved people's lives. [11]
Government intervention has had success in alleviating the harm caused by economic depressions. [12]
Governments can promote informed decision-making in people through regulations, while laissez-faire economics results in poor outcomes due to poor decision-making. [13]
Laissez-faire economics has no effective mechanism to conserve resources. Government regulations can fill in and preserve resources for the future. [14]
Laissez-faire economics has no effective mechanism to prevent corporate fraud and theft. Government enforcement of the law can effectively prosecute and deter corporate fraud and theft. [15]
Laissez-faire economics are ineffective at producing public goods and long-term social and civic investments. Governments are effective at doing so. [16]
Markets are biased towards short-term goals, and government intervention in markets are effective at ameliorating this effect. [17]
State aid programs in the United States are effective at increasing the wellbeing of children. [18]
Workers need government regulations to protect them from workplace injury and exploitation. [19]
|
Opposing arguments
Notes
- ↑ Douglas J. Amy
- ↑ Douglas J. Amy
- ↑ Douglas J. Amy
- ↑ Douglas J. Amy
- ↑ Douglas J. Amy
- ↑ Douglas J. Amy
- ↑ Douglas J. Amy
- ↑ Douglas J. Amy
- ↑ Douglas J. Amy
- ↑ Douglas J. Amy
- ↑ Douglas J. Amy
- ↑ Douglas J. Amy
- ↑ Douglas J. Amy
- ↑ Douglas J. Amy
- ↑ Douglas J. Amy
- ↑ Douglas J. Amy
- ↑ Douglas J. Amy
- ↑ Hunter
- ↑ Douglas J. Amy
- ↑ Douglas J. Amy
