The way to show government should intervene into personal lives

[MadMojoMonkey]

"Why is it the government's job to make people happy?"
We've been over this.
It's because governed people say it is. It's because when people are unhappy (think Great Depression), they will demand the gov't step in. It's because when people are happy, they will make the easiest choice and re-elect whoever is in office.
I wish it was just issues as severe as the Great Depression, but we all know that people will insist the government intervene on behalf of their happiness over video game loot boxes.

"Opportunity cost is never an issue when the alternative is null."
There is never a null alternative when it comes to existing wealth. If the money is not used for A, it will be used for B. "non-using" the money is a valid logical use, despite the apparent contradiction in language.

"No one likes paying taxes, so are the benefits are taxes moot?"
I am an American patriot and I am proud to pay taxes.
If you don't like paying American taxes, there are ~200 other countries in the world for you to move to. I hear a couple of them don't require their citizens to pay taxes. What's that? You don't want to move from your homeland, despite the taxes? Then how about you suck up your pride and admit that the choice to live anywhere involves compromises, and on the whole, you're pretty happy with paying taxes in America.

[BananaStand]

"Why is it the government's job to make people happy?"
We've been over this. It's because governed people say it is.

No...that's just something you said. That doesn't make it true. I know of at least one country where citizens are only promised an opportunity to engage in "the pursuit of happiness". The happiness itself is not a guaranteed function of government.

It's because when people are unhappy (think Great Depression), they will demand the gov't step in.

Really? They demand it? No one demands more of themselves? Unhappy people should just turn to the government rather than try to improve their situation through their own efforts?? Get educated, get a better job, save more, spend less, advance, grow, improve.....

Where does the citizen's obligation end and the government's begin??

It's because when people are happy, they will make the easiest choice and re-elect whoever is in office.

Way oversimplified. Hillary promised to be mostly an extension of Obama. Their policies and ideology aligned alot. Hillary got more votes than Trump. But Trump won.

So were the people happy? I think you've oversimplified this in a way that just doesn't apply to modern governments where populations number in the double-digit millions or more. Even a minority opinion still represents a shit load of people.

I wish it was just issues as severe as the Great Depression, but we all know that people will insist the government intervene on behalf of their happiness over video game loot boxes.

So why then...is a government just "whatever people want"? Shouldn't' there be limits?

"Opportunity cost is never an issue when the alternative is null."
There is never a null alternative when it comes to existing wealth. If the money is not used for A, it will be used for B. "non-using" the money is a valid logical use, despite the apparent contradiction in language.

What about things that have no cost at all?? Like seatbelt laws. Lawmakers and legislators are going to be working and getting paid whether they spend the time passing laws, or spend the time shoving their own thumbs up their butt-holes. Enacting the law costs nothing.

Furthermore traffic is already regulated in all sorts of ways. So cops are already out on patrol anyway. They're out there pulling over violators and writing citations anyway. There is no cost to enforcing a seatbelt law.

So what's the opportunity cost of not having a seatbelt law?

"No one likes paying taxes, so are the benefits are taxes moot?"
I am an American patriot and I am proud to pay taxes.

This paragraph was a little eyebrow raising MMM. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

But there are plenty of people who feel "Hey gov't, instead of paying you income tax...I'm just gonna keep the money. I'm gonna spend it on ammunition and supplies while you try and run this country off of sales, import, and property taxes. And if you can't do that....well then come on over here and try to take your income tax"

That's obviously a little bit of hyperbole, but I sympathize with those sentiments ALOT more than I do with "I'm a patriot, and I'm proud to pay taxes".

[OngBonga]

What is the government's role when it comes to eduaction? To educate an individual as best as possible? Or to provide the most efficient education system that gives everyone as good an education as circumstances allow?

If you have a remit to edcucate one person, then you can educate that person to a very high standard. If your remit is to educate a population, those standards will drop due a number of factors, such as budget, teacher availability and skill, demand etc.

So the government won't be very efficient at educating an individual, but the population? It's not going to be an easy job and they succeed, so yeah I guess so.

[BananaStand]

What is the government's role when it comes to eduaction? To educate an individual as best as possible? Or to provide the most efficient education system that gives everyone as good an education as circumstances allow?

Neither is even close.

The government's obligation is to offer an opportunity to gain the skills and knowledge required to be a viable member of the marketplace.

That's it....just the opportunity. And only the skills required to be viable in the marketplace.

[wufwugy]

The government's obligation is to offer an opportunity to gain the skills and knowledge required to be a viable member of the marketplace

That's when we ask ourselves whether the government actually does this more efficiently.

If it is the government's responsibility to make sure citizens get good enough education, if it is the case that the free market better provides that education than the government's system, that means it is the government's responsibility to NOT intervene.