So, Cuba would be better? After all, they HAVE no 'Rich" there.

I'd take Cuba over Somalia.

But if you guys like that kind of society, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

I wouldn't say it's an either-or decision - many would argue that things that help the individual are good because they help society as a whole, and vice versa. If I had to pick one, though, I would say that society has a duty to operate for the best welfare of the greatest aggregate of its citizens in the long-term (usually mean intergeneration-ally).

And that, I insist, goes to the individual. When the focus is on supporting the rights of the individual, society invariably benefits. When we focus on "the greater good" the individual suffers, and ultimately the entire society suffers. So it was in the Soviet Union for example.

At it's most basic, what is the purpose of society, and how does the individual factor into that? Does society operate to service and better the individual, or is the reverse true?

I wouldn't say it's an either-or decision - many would argue that things that help the individual are good because they help society as a whole, and vice versa. If I had to pick one, though, I would say that society has a duty to operate for the best welfare of the greatest aggregate of its citizens in the long-term (usually mean intergeneration-ally). Usually, I think that takes a form of what I've heard called "Rule Utilitarianism", which says that groups set up rules designed to promote greatest happiness for the greatest number (as distinct from simple Act Utilitarianism).

We were the first to assert that the more complicated the forms assumed by civilization, the more restricted the freedom of the individual must become

I'd say it's more that the restrictions are out in the open, on paper, and backed up by officially set-up mechanisms with unofficial support and assent by most of the population. Individuals in smaller or less advanced groups generally had plenty of restrictions on their freedom to act, but they were usually a combination of culture, belief, and the forces of conformism that work to keep the small groups that characterized human society for tens of thousands of years before the current ten thousand years together.

At it's most basic, what is the purpose of society, and how does the individual factor into that? Does society operate to service and better the individual, or is the reverse true?

I'd question the relevance of the late 17th century example, Steve. Virtually everything about that era was different, ranging from much more of the population farming and/or living in small communities, to the slow on-land transit times (AKA horse-and-cart), and the customs that sprung up around them. Can you imagine that working in a modern society, where problems cross thousands of miles, most of the population live in large towns or cities with at least tens of thousands of people in the populations, and both transit and communication are rapid?

How about stating it this way?

We were the first to assert that the more complicated the forms assumed by civilization, the more restricted the freedom of the individual must become

The fact is that every society that has ever existed has had supremely privileged people and supremely unprivileged people. What you want to call them is irrelevant. The great success of Western Civilization has been in making it possible for most of the population to fall somewhere between these two extremes.

I agree. If you look at most of history, without even the semblance of anything resembling a court system or law-and-order in a "large" society (small groups, like towns of under 500 people, don't generally count because you still have some of the small-group-conformity mechanisms like shame and the like working), what you basically get is some form of feudalism. That can range from actual feudal lords in "agreements" with their subjects to provide security in exchange for a usually large share of their economic output, to modern mafia-style arrangements where the "protection" usually bleeds over into extortion.

I'd question the relevance of the late 17th century example, Steve. Virtually everything about that era was different, ranging from much more of the population farming and/or living in small communities, to the slow on-land transit times (AKA horse-and-cart), and the customs that sprung up around them. Can you imagine that working in a modern society, where problems cross thousands of miles, most of the population live in large towns or cities with at least tens of thousands of people in the populations, and both transit and communication are rapid?

charles, that's nonsense -- you get a few warlords in a place like Somalia (rich in relation to their peers), but no true 'rich' people by our standards - precisely because it's impossible to become and/or stay rich there.

Nonsense? What exactly does rich mean except wealth in relation to ones peers? So you've figures out that you can't apply US standards to Somalia? Color me unimpressed.

The fact is that every society that has ever existed has had supremely privileged people and supremely unprivileged people. What you want to call them is irrelevant. The great success of Western Civilization has been in making it possible for most of the population to fall somewhere between these two extremes.

pure public good: any good where consumption of said good by one consumer does not reduce the ability of another consumer to consume the good as well in lesser, equal or greater protions and where consumers cannot be excluded.

public good with congestion: any good where consumption by any consumer can or cannot be excluded, but where additional consumers use of the good reduces that ability of later consumers to consume an equal amount of the good.

Note that health care, housing, and food are NOT public goods by definition. If I eat a sandwhich nobody else can then eat the sandwhich.

Additionally, while in general markets tend to under provide public goods in a theoretical free market experimental and behavioral economis suggest that this under provision is subject to context. Thus, while a public good may be a necessary condition for government intervention in the economy it may not be sufficient.

Personally, I'd prefer a necessary and sufficient criterion for government intervention.

charles, that's nonsense -- you get a few warlords in a place like Somalia (rich in relation to their peers), but no true 'rich' people by our standards - precisely because it's impossible to become and/or stay rich there.

Actual some anarcho-capitalists have argued that the Old West characterized, to a large degree, a stateless society where "law enforcement" was often privately provided (e.g. Pinkertons). Murray Rothbard argues that Pennsylvania fell into anarchism and was not a period of endless violence with Mad Max roaming the roads in the last of the V8s.

If for most of 1684–88 there was no colonywide government in existence, what of the local officials? Were they not around to provide that evidence of the state's continued existence, which so many people through the ages have deemed vital to man's very survival? The answer is no. The lower courts met only a few days a year, and the county officials were, again, private citizens who devoted very little time to upholding the law. No, the reality must be faced that the new, but rather large, colony of Pennsylvania lived for the greater part of four years in a de facto condition of individual anarchism, and seemed none the worse for the experience. Furthermore, the Assembly passed no laws after 1686, as it was involved in a continual wrangle over attempts to increase its powers and to amend, rather than just reject, legislation.

[...]

William Penn had the strong and distinct impression that his "holy experiment" had slipped away from him, had taken a new and bewildering turn. Penn had launched a colony that he thought would be quietly subject to his dictates and yield him a handsome profit. By providing a prosperous haven of refuge for Quakers, he had expected in turn the rewards of wealth and power. Instead, he found himself without either. Unable to collect revenue from the free and independent-minded Pennsylvanians, he saw the colony slipping gracefully into outright anarchism—into a growing and flourishing land of no taxes and virtually no state. Penn frantically determined to force Pennsylvania back into the familiar mold of the old order.

[...]

The colonists were evidently content in their anarchism, and shrewdly engaged in nonviolent resistance against the commission. In fact, they scarcely paid any attention to the commission. A year passed before the commission was even mentioned in the minutes of the Council. News about the commission was delayed until the summer of 1687 and protests against the plan poured in to Penn. The commissioners, and the protesters too, pretended that they had taken up their posts as a continuing executive. Finally, however, Penn grew suspicious and asked why he had received no communication from the supposedly governing body.

Unable to delay matters any longer, the reluctant commissioners of state took office in February 1688, a year after their appointment. Three and one-half years of substantive anarchism were over. The state was back in its heaven; once more all was right with the world. Typically, Penn urged the commissioners to conceal any differences they might have among themselves, so as to deceive and overawe the public: "Show your virtues but conceal your infirmities; this will make you awful and revered with ye people." He further urged them to enforce the king's duties and to levy taxes to support the government.

The vast majority of 'rich' people in this country wouldn't be able to hold on to most of their wealth if we suddenly lost the rule of law. They'd spend most of it on bodyguards and generators and additional servants and still end up losing the rest.

Ask yourself how easy it is to be rich in a country without the rule of law sometime.

Ask youself instead how easy it is to be middle class in a country without the rule of law. Last time I checked, every country in history had rich people and poor people regardless of the level of law and order that existed there, but the middle class ceases to exist where there is no law and order.

I don't think that some people paying more taxes than others or paying a higher proportion of their income than others is wrong.

Me neither. I would go one step further. I don't think that people at the lowest ends of the income stream should pay any income taxes. I don't think it is moral for the government to tax income needed to make ends meet.

The poor pay taxes, some of which are regressive, some of which they have less ability to avoid, and some of which effectively burden the working poor, like the payroll tax.

The taxation line is subject to debate, but should rest on fiscal prudence. We cannot, for instance, exempt a majority of Americans from taxation and have a sufficient tax base for government to function.

(I am opposed to the earned income tax credit, aka/ fast food subsidy, but I think that ship has probably sailed)