Quantcast
Opinion

Letter: People create business: Business exists despite government, not because of it

Comments

Return To Article
  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Aug. 7, 2012 12:16 a.m.

    Try running a business in Somalia. There is no government so you should have unlimited opportunity to prosper. Of course there is no education, so good luck with your workforce. There is no infrastructure, so good luck moving your goods to market. There is no court system, so good luck enforcing patents and trade marks. For that matter, good luck keeping thieves, extortionists, arsonists, plunderers, and kidnappers at bay. Good luck getting the U.S. State Dept. and military to protect your capital, as they do for U.S. corporations.

    In short, good luck with that.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Aug. 7, 2012 4:32 a.m.

    Jeez, is this really that big a deal?

    Again with the all or nothing.

    It is a partnership. At least I hope it is, between business and government and people.

    YOu can try to parse every word, and assign your own meanings, but in the end, it is a combined effort of many entities.

    Try running your business without roads and electricity.

    Here is a great, concise example.

    Las Vegas is a huge city with many businesses making lots of money.
    Take away Hoover Dam and tell me what Las Vegas would look like.

    Now tell me what "business" would have built the Dam.

    I have see people on both sides take this discussion to illogical extremes.

    The bottom line is that there are things that the government provides that help business succeed.

    That is what was meant.

    Quit making more of it than it is to suit your agenda.

  • embarrassed Utahn! Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 7, 2012 5:01 a.m.

    "Hogwash" is exactly how I respond to baseless claims Mitt makes about his expertise in job creation.

    Our magnificent President Obama has done so much to correct the ugly situation brought on by Republican policies and he absolutely deserves a second term to continue.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 7, 2012 6:30 a.m.

    Mr. Myers has completely missed the point being made.

    Does our economy, and therefore Myers' business, not depend on the existence of roads, bridges and waterways?

    Does our society, and therefore the quality of life Myers and his employees enjoy, not depend on police and fire protection?

    Do Myers' customers, and therefore his business, not depend on schools, sanitary water, health/safety inspectors and a justice system to make living in this community possible?

    I hope Mr. Myers' business is successful. I also hope Myers realizes that his success is also dependent on the existence of public infrastructure and publicly funded agencies that he and too many people are taking for granted.

  • micawber Centerville, UT
    Aug. 7, 2012 7:08 a.m.

    I'm in favor of business, but we need government too. Government comes in handy when, for example:
    1. A business hires workers educated in government schools.
    2. A business licenses technology from universities funded with federal research grants.
    3. A business wants to protect its patents, trademarks or copyrights (can you imagine an information based economy succeeding without patents and copyrights?)
    4. A business wants to use the courts to collect debts or enforce contracts or stop unfair competition.
    5. A business wants the Federal Trade Commission or Justice Department to be protect it from monopolistic practices by its competitors.
    6. A business wants a level playing field in the marketplace for which it needs the Securities and Exchange Commission.
    And when businesses fail (as they sometimes do), government comes in handy by:
    7. Administering the bankruptcy of the business.
    8. Under certain circumstances, guaranteeing pensions.
    We all want government to be more effective, but to ignore its benefits is ostrich-like. I'm glad we don't live as hunter-gatherers any more.

  • dave Park City, UT
    Aug. 7, 2012 7:15 a.m.

    Obama was not necessarily talking about government. He referred to a teacher or someone that had an influence. No man is an island. To say anything was 100% original with no outside influence is patently false.

  • ECR Burke, VA
    Aug. 7, 2012 7:35 a.m.

    It has been interesting to read the comments on both sides of this issue. If we leave the politics out of it - that the President is making a case for higher taxes on the wealthy and that Governor Romney's campaign has blatantly taken his words out of context in an effort to discredit him - then it seems to boil down to what we are as a nation. It is interesting to note that the early leaders of the nation were lead by two factions, the Jeffersonian wing that was considered liberal for promoting the rights of the individual and the Adams wing that promoted a more communitarian approach. They were considered conservative. In the 236 that have passed things have morphed in our interpretations of those two terms. But it seems to me that in a culture such as the one built in Utah, the idea that the collective efforts of all have lead to the general benefit of society as a whole was practiced early on and still exists today. We are a nation of people, not just a group of individuals. And until we accept that concept our progress will be hindered.

  • freedomingood provo, Utah
    Aug. 7, 2012 7:37 a.m.

    God. You forgot God made everything and is a government in himself with commandments laws and regulations.

    He made it all, so you could hunt down those berries and claim you did it all on your own.

    He created the constitution and thus the government of the USA so we could make roads...... ect and then you could claim you did it all on your own. Oh, look at you, all grown up. I'd like to see you floating in space and claiming you did it all on your own.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Aug. 7, 2012 7:37 a.m.

    Another letter showing that people either don't get it, or they deliberately choose to misrepresent and distort. Which is it?

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Aug. 7, 2012 7:50 a.m.

    Apparently this letter writer doesn't feel like the government's heavy investment for the invention of the Internet did not help Google, Amazon, or Ebay.

  • liberal larry salt lake City, utah
    Aug. 7, 2012 8:17 a.m.

    The proof is in the pudding.
    Shut up all of us "pro government" types by telling us of one country with a weak federal government that is prospering.
    Somalia, Afganistan, and Mexico, have weak or non-existant governments, and they're sure doing great.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Aug. 7, 2012 8:20 a.m.

    Really, people? How many times are we going to read essentially the same letter which essentially agrees with what Obama said but the author is completely unaware because said author has failed to do any research on the (completely taken out of context) quote to which the letter refers?

    We get it. We know that you do not really read the paper to which you are writing and that you will blindly follow Romney no matter what he says or does. We also know that it really isn't Romney you are blindly following but the (R) after his name.

    Good for you! You are a mindless voter and proud of it!

    But do we really need an accurate statewide count? Do we really need a "new" letter every day about this issue? Is there really nothing else Obama has said and done that is worth writing a letter to the paper?

    Come on - and least be creative and write something new! This letter is based on lie - the next one doesn't have to be any more truthful! Just please, cover a different topic already!

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Aug. 7, 2012 8:22 a.m.

    No one is suggesting we dismantle the government but considering the fact that all tyranny comes from governments, the power we allow our government to have over our lives is crucial. Dictatorship or personal freedom is the choice and we are moving fast toward a dictatorship in America by an expanding, intrusive, and very expensive government!

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Aug. 7, 2012 8:29 a.m.

    Roland is right, we could not operate in an environment such as exists in Somalia.

    But the argument made by many that the government is the benevolen creator of all good and in its infinite wisdom has bestowed wealth on us all is also flawed.

    That idea leads to the approach taken by BO and many of his ilk that since under the current system some have flourished and some have floundered, wealth MUST be taken from the prosperous and given to the flounderer to correct some flaw in the system. That approach is wrong.

    BO's approach ignores the effort, ingenuity, risk taking, effort, and yes - in many cases luck - of the flourisher. Because IF all is made possible SOLEY because of the government, ALL would flourish and none would flounder.

    No, we should strive for equal opportunity, not equal outcome.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Aug. 7, 2012 8:33 a.m.

    "No one is suggesting we dismantle the government"

    Unless you consider the FDA or the EPA or the NEA or FEMA or the , uh, what was that next one? Oops.

    Maybe they are not suggesting that we dismantle the WHOLE government, but certainly some.

    And, lastly, Why is no one suggesting we dismantle the government?

    Could it be that it does some things that we need?

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Aug. 7, 2012 8:42 a.m.

    Somalia has no strong government? Baloney, they have a strong socialist government! So much for that lame arguement!

  • dave Park City, UT
    Aug. 7, 2012 8:47 a.m.

    lost in DC,

    "government is the benevolen [sic] creator of all good and in its infinite wisdom has bestowed wealth on us all..."

    I know absolutely no one that believes this. Our president and his party do not believe this.

    Is your political foe the Boogyman?

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Aug. 7, 2012 9:00 a.m.

    JoeBlow is spot on.

    It is a partnership between people and businesses and their govt. The govt. in this case specifically formed and financed by the people and their businesses to help with the things markets cannot or will not do.

    In the old days, a town sheriff or school was often financed by the local business community. Certain really big projects (damns, highways, etc.) are beyond the kind of investment paybacks that businesses need. Govt. does these better. Does the govt. do them all directly? Nope. It often hires contractors to do the actual work. Govt. is, in that sense, a financing mechanism for extremely large projects where the payback is diffuse.

    Overall, it is simply not all or nothing. Do we feel the need to trim back our govt.? Great. Do we feel that there is something it should do it is not doing? Fine. These are the discussions free people should have in a free society.

    But all of this all or nothing stuff is nonsense. Govt. is neither all good nor all bad. It is simply the collective will of the people to do certain things. That will is expressed via the ballot box.

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    Aug. 7, 2012 10:42 a.m.

    >Mountanman
    Somalia has a strong socialist government? What you're referring to, I believe, is the former Somali Democratic Republic, today known as the Somali Republic. They are, as you say, socialist. They also control almost none of the country. They control a small part of the capital, Mogadishu, and that's all. The Transitional Federal Government controls a small part as well. So does the self-governing northwest region called Puntland. 90% of the country isn't under the control of any government at all. So, sorry, Roland's right on this issue.

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    Aug. 7, 2012 10:55 a.m.

    @Mountanman

    "Somalia has no strong government? Baloney, they have a strong socialist government! So much for that lame arguement!"

    I know this letter is about the United States, but I can't let a bold-face ignorant statement like yours go unchallenged. According to the CIA Worldfact website:

    "Somalia has lacked any internationally recognized central government since the fall of the Siad Barre regime in 1991. The current Transitional Federal Government is the seventeenth attempt to create a formal state, the most recent of which brought the opposition Alliance for the Reliberation of Somalia into the government in February 2009. The country is currently controlled by various political and regional factions as well as local warlords in the south and in two "republics" in the north."

    I know many people who have served as peacekeepers in Somalia and their experience dictates far different than a strong socialist government. Their government is "survival of the fittest" in the most extreme sense of the term.

  • ugottabkidn Sandy, UT
    Aug. 7, 2012 10:56 a.m.

    That's right Brian, you were just dropped out of the sky just as you are and did it all by yourself. I'll bet mommy and daddy appreciate your attitude. By the way, how about a refunded the government subsidies for your education?

  • John20000 Cedar Hills, UT
    Aug. 7, 2012 11:18 a.m.

    The purpose of the US government is to protect its citizen's rights to life, liberty , and the pursuit of happiness. Capitalism can by government-free if, and only if, it doesn't infringe on a citizen's rights. Government by the people should be involved whenever there is the violation of citizen's rights such as theft of property, fraud, or exploitation; otherwise, you end up with the pirate's version of capitalism aptly summarized by Captain Sparrow, "A man can do, whatever a man can do."

    The debate isn't about business. It is really about public goods and services. For example, mobility is considered a citizen's right in the US, so the ability to cross State lines or even just the ability to drive around necessitates public goods and services like roads, traffic rules, and police. Sure, I think capitalism could provide similar goods and services, but because of the Great Depression and now the Great Recession, we start never-ending government public projects and have grown accustomed to being taxed for them.

  • omni scent taylorsville, UT
    Aug. 7, 2012 11:21 a.m.

    "From the first time a hunter traded part of his kill for berries from the gatherer, buisness has been conducted without the help of government"

    And I'm sure the hunter/gatherer society would flourish under the complete lack of government influence. However, the rise of agrerian societies happened about the same time as the start of government. Industrial societies have never existed without government.

    The two need to work together if we want to stay out of the stone age.

  • Howard Beal Provo, UT
    Aug. 7, 2012 11:32 a.m.

    Let's make this simple and bring common sense. There has to be the correct balance between business and government. The letter about Somalia is right on the money. Without any government, no business rather than what described above (one based on stealing, kidnapping, violence, extortion) can exist. However, government can go too far and strangle business with too many regulations. The Hoover Dam construction shows a good balance as does the 1-15 construction generally. Monies came from government to fund these projects but they were actually built by private enterprise. Business with proper government oversight work best. There is a danger when the government controls everything. Think of Chernobyl. There was nothing to protect the citizens of the Ukraine region from the Soviet government if they wanted to cut corners and show no regard for their people. But if the plant was privately own but had some amount of government oversight, then that is a better situation. Also, obviously government should provide basic infrastructure (and I would say providing good quality schools is infrastructure) and do some amount of regulation to protect fair competition and consumers and settle disputes. But government can go too far too. BALANCE!

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Aug. 7, 2012 11:32 a.m.

    Obama's mistake is to think that most people think like he does. He thinks that because he never had to work a day in his life, that nobody else should have to. He thinks that because he was educated at the expense of others, that everybody should be educated at the expense of others. He thinks that because he didn't build the roads, the schools, the infrastructure that makes things easier, that nobody paid for them. He can't comprehend the sacrifice required from taxpayers who paid for those things AFTER they worked at a job that created a profit that the government took from them in taxes to pay for that infrastructure AFTER the government took the lion's share to pay for pork-barrel projects for Congress.

    Obama doesn't get it. Those who parrot for him don't get it. Those who allow him to take credit when he has done nothing to EARN that credit, don't get it.

    America was built by the hard work of the individual, not by the "hardly working" government. Hard working Americans paid the taxes that paid for everything that is part of our infrastructure.

  • eagle Provo, UT
    Aug. 7, 2012 11:41 a.m.

    mountman:

    Understand that I am not a liberal but you are wrong on Somalia. What exists in Somalia is as pretty close to anarchy as one can get. Most of the country is "controlled" by warlords who have their minions drive around in jeep like vehicles with guns mounted to intimidate the people. The small amount of "government" that exists is around the capital and might call itself socialist. We could, conservative and liberal alike, could even hope for that government to become stronger and actually take control of the country and help end the mindless violence that grips this country. Because even the seas around the country are not safe because these thugs often board ships in acts of piracy, not the cute cuddly pirates we think of in Johnny Depp movies. Somalia is a mess and because no real organized government exists beyond small regions of the capital, no business will flourish. Again, balance between the right amount of government and private enterprise is needed.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Aug. 7, 2012 11:50 a.m.

    According to Mr Richards, Obama "never had to work a day in his life"

    That may be news to many. Lets see

    - Graduated Columbia University and Harvard Law School
    - President of Harvard Law Review.
    - worked as a community organizer before earning a law degree
    - civil rights attorney and taught constitutional law -
    - 6 years in Illinois senate
    - 4 years US Senate

    Care to list your work and life experience so we can compare?

  • joe5 South Jordan, UT
    Aug. 7, 2012 11:55 a.m.

    How many of you who are posting actually own a business? Why not? The government is the same for you as it is for Larry Miller.

    The fact is that it takes a special individual with a willingness to take risks, make sacrifices, spend countless hours, etc to create a business. THAT is the point.

    The government is just one of the conditions businessmen need to consider. Businesses were in operation before our revolutionary war. They were created by men like Franklin who were willing to put all on the line with the expectation of being rewarded for their efforts. There were few roads and little education yet there were still people creating businesses.

    There are also businesses in Somalia.

    The government's role in creating business is vastly overrated. However, the government's role in hindering business is even more underrated. High taxes and over-regulation are just two government influences driving jobs overseas. The businessmen I know would love to keep jobs here but they just can't afford to do it and stay competitive. It's greedy government, not greedy businessmen, that is the problem.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Aug. 7, 2012 12:33 p.m.

    This debate is really funny. The liberals all believe that it is because of government that businesses survive or can even be built. I believe that it is because of businesses that government can succeed.

    Think of it this way. When a home developer builds a new sub-division, it is the privately owned utility companies that run the utility lines, the developer and private companies that pay for the roads to be built, and pays for all of initial build up of the infrastructure. The government is only able to increase their tax revenues after the resource is developed.

    Public schools were a result of manufacturers growing and concentrating a labor force into a small area. Since there were so many people congregated and kids running free, they had to contain them using tax dollars generated by business.

    The government's primary purpose is supposed to be an arbitrator and enforcer of uniform rules. Businesses created the government to enforce the rules, but the government thinks it knows more than those who created it.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Aug. 7, 2012 12:37 p.m.

    Joeblow,

    There is no history of a Harvard University. Since the government didn't build it, it doesn't exist. John Harvard, the minister who left half his estate and his entire library to found that school is just a figment of your imagination. Since Obama didn't create it, it doesn't exist.

    Since King George II founded Columbia by royal charter, it, too, does not exist. No foreign government ever created anything of value for America. Just ask Obama. If it wasn't his idea, it doesn't exist.

    Of course you would admire the Community Organizer in Chief. He was so very successful getting thousands of unregistered voters to the polls. His chief accomplishment as community organizer was getting people to squat in our city parks for months on end because they, like him, didn't know how to work after being "educated".

    You stated that he taught Constitutional Law. Whose Constitution? Surely not the Constitution of the United States which he reviles every day of his presidency as he refuses to enforce the laws - even after taking an oath before God and man that he would FAITHFULLY discharge the duties of his office.

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    Aug. 7, 2012 12:57 p.m.

    >Redshirt
    "liberals all believe that it is because of government that businesses survive or can even be built."
    You actually don't know what liberals believe, but that's not it. We believe that business and government can and should work together productively.
    >Mike Richards
    You have the most astonishing ability to read the mind of President Obama. "Obama believes" is, I think, your favorite phrase. But you don't actually know what he believes at all. You're just making it all up. Based on, I suppose, your own ideology.
    Instead of going on and on about how "Obama believes it's okay to torture kittens," why don't you cite some specific policy of his that you disagree with, and tell us what specifically you propose instead?

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 7, 2012 1:17 p.m.

    @Mountanman

    "No one is suggesting we dismantle the government but considering the fact that all tyranny comes from governments"

    Tyranny comes from power sources. It's not necessarily just governments. Consider corporations that run sweatshops overseas, or the working conditions plenty of workers in this country faced 100+ years ago. Heck, consider slavery.

    Right now .0006% of Americans have paid 80% of the campaign contributions to superpacs. We have elections that, quite possibly, can be bought, and I'm sure those big donors are looking for something in return...

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 7, 2012 1:22 p.m.

    @Redshirt
    "The liberals all believe that it is because of government that businesses survive or can even be built."

    Not at all, we believe that government can create an environment that helps make it easier for businesses to survive or be built. The business building is still started by the entrepreneur and sustained through consumer purchasing of goods and services. In the end it's consumers who keep the business alive and fuel job growth since hiring is a means of last resort for businesses since I mean, let's be reasonable, why would a business hire a person unless they needed another worker?

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Aug. 7, 2012 2:09 p.m.

    Mr Richards,

    I completely understand.

    I would not have wanted to compare my work experience to Obamas either.

    Especially if I had made the statement that you did.

    You really had no other option than to dodge.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Aug. 7, 2012 2:21 p.m.

    To "Eric Samuelsen" and "atl134" do we take Obama at his word? Or is he being deceitful when he needs to be. Remember recently Obama when discussing businesses, said "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." Since then it has only been made worse as Obama spokesmen have said that he was referring to infrastructure, and how government made it possible for businesses to succeed.

    Thanks to both of you for reinforcing my point. From Eric's collectivism outlook, where no individual can be successful on their own, to "atl134" admitting that it is because of government that we have the environment needed for businesses to grow.

    It isn't because of anything that government does that businesses grow. It is in spite of government that businesses grow.

  • Ali'ikai 'A'amakualenalena Provo, UT
    Aug. 7, 2012 2:48 p.m.

    Question: If Barack Obama was not the current President of the United States and object of Republican "vilification by any means", would Mitt Romney be the presumptive Republican candidate for President?

    Answer: No!

    Question: Will conservative evangelical and Tea Party Republicans continue to support Mitt Romney if he is elected President.

    Answer: No!

    Question: Why do conservative evangelical and Tea Party Republicans support Mitt Romney if they don't really like him?

    Answer: Because he isn't Barack Obama! And they've been taught that Obama is "foreign".

    Question: So if anyone (i.e. Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann) had been nominated as the Republican candidate regardless of qualifications, would conservative evangelical and Tea Party Republicans vote for that person?

    Answer: Yes.

    Question: So why didn't another candidate become the nominee if conservative evangelical and Tea Party Republicans don't really like Mitt Romney?

    Answer: Because he had more money! And since he is one of them, the Money Men will receive a big payoff if Romney is elected. Since social issues disappear after the election, they don't worry about conservative evangelical and Tea Party Republicans having any influence in what Romney would do if elected.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Aug. 7, 2012 2:59 p.m.

    Isn't it interesting how the liberals smother Obama with kisses, even while they claim that Romney's action at Bain Capital killed people?

    If there is one thing that can be absolutely fact-checked, it is that Obama's actions in the White House cost Brian Terry his life and that NO ONE lost their life because of Mitt Romney at Bain Capital.

    Look at the attacks that Obama and his friends are making against Mitt Romney. What kind of person would make those kinds of attacks? A desperate man who has failed at everything that he has ever attempted, that's who. Everything that Obama has touched has failed.

    There is no "partnership" between business and government, unless you call "forced participation" a partnership. Business can get along just fine without government, but government can't get along without business. Government needs millions of people to feed it. It's appetite for money is insatiable. Obama knows that the only way he can keep from being fed to that beast is to feed everyone else to the beast first.

    That's his "noble" plan. He wants to be the last one to be eaten.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Aug. 7, 2012 3:01 p.m.

    Redshirt,

    In every community in which I have lived, the business community is extremely active in political issues. Though I am no historian, it is my understanding that this has (more or less) always been so. That business folks were very interested in forming townships and cities. For the formation of territories and then states.

    If govt. was not important to them, why invest so much of their time and energy into creating them? Surely it is because they saw stable govt. as important for their businesses to flourish and for their families, customers, and workers.

    Those of us who are LDS have scriptural backing that our constitution (which creates the federal govt.) was established by God and "by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose".

    Hence, govt. itself cannot be evil. It can only become perverted from its true course (an issue you have addressed frequently).

    Therefore, govt. is not in and of itself bad nor is it a hindrance to business. It MAY be that our current govt. has become a problem (or not). But that is far different from stating that business grows in spite of govt. You know better, right?

  • L White Springville, UT
    Aug. 7, 2012 3:49 p.m.

    Let's hear it for government! I remember my history well. When the pioneers entered the valley, were they greeted by government officials who warmly welcomed them? Did they see streets paved with gold, homes and business just waiting for them to take occupancy? Were there dams and reservoirs filled, just waiting for them to turn on the spigot? Were there schools and factories waiting to teach their children and give them jobs?

    Oh right, that's the way that Obama tells it.

    What really happened?

    Who built the roads?

    Who dug the ditches?

    Who planted the fields?

    Who taught the children?

    Who built the factories?

    It is surely a different world from what Obama has told us, isn't it?

    There was only opportunity - far from the despots who let the mobs rape and murder the Mormons in Illinois and Missouri. No government helped. In fact, the government did everything that it could to destroy Utah and to shackle the people of Deseret so that they could NOT succeed.

    That's what Obama wants to do to everyone. As long as people pretend that he knows anything about governing, they will prolong the agony for us all.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 7, 2012 5:09 p.m.

    HaHaHaHa wheeee!

    Now that is the funniest letter to the editor since the last one I read by a conservative! Too funny. Business exists in spite of government.

    Okay, if that's the case, then tomorrow we will get rid of all funding for roads.

    Poof. . . gone. Tomorrow. All road crews can go home. All traffic cops, your service is no longer needed. All stoplights will no longer be turned on. Just that one small part of government gone. Poof. . . tomorrow.

    Let's see how your business does the day after tomorrow. Maybe you can go back to trading berries.

  • freedomingood provo, Utah
    Aug. 7, 2012 5:14 p.m.

    If you read some of Steven Pinker's work you'll see that the hunter gatherer period of human excistence was actually increadibly violent as tribes fought each other constantly over territory.

    Pretty much what they have in somalia without a central government.

  • freedomingood provo, Utah
    Aug. 7, 2012 5:18 p.m.

    Of course the answer has been provided. Move to Somalia - a conservative paradise where you will not be taxed.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Aug. 7, 2012 9:44 p.m.

    "When the pioneers entered the valley, were they greeted by government officials who warmly welcomed them?"

    You need a history lesson.

    Who was the government for the Mormons between the 1850s and 1896 (when Utah was finally admitted as a state into the USA)?

    Mormon settlers quickly set up a government as Brigham Young was set up as governor over the Utah territory. Mayors, bishops, and other governing bodies were set up.

    Who dug ditches, built infrastructure, and educated? The Utah government of course. It operated as a theocracy. Education? Believe it or not, Utah communities set those up as well.

    So there goes your argument. Private farmers didn't do everything in Utah.

  • wrz Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 7, 2012 11:14 p.m.

    @lost in DC:

    "Roland is right, we could not operate in an environment such as exists in Somalia."

    If you and Roland think that Somalia doesn't have a government you are grossly misinformed. There is a government... a strong socialistic government run essentially by a dominating and powerful religion. The government is so large and all powerful that it has killed all creativity and incentive.

    Unfortunately, with the current White House occupant, we are creeping steadily toward a government not unlike Somalia. And he's seems proud of it with statements like 'you didn't build that.'

  • Alfred Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 7, 2012 11:30 p.m.

    @The Real Maverick:

    "Who dug ditches, built infrastructure, and educated? The Utah government of course... Education? Believe it or not, Utah communities set those up as well."

    I think you'll find that a church did most of it... under the tutelage of Brigham Young who just happened to be governor AND a significant church leader.

  • eagle Provo, UT
    Aug. 8, 2012 2:12 a.m.

    wrz:

    I am going to suggest you go and google somalia. Real easy. Then look at the wikipedia section on Somalia. Go to paragraph 4 and there is a nice description on the government situation of Somalia. Further down there are some nice sections on the civil war and what is going on in Somalia since 2000 and even more recently. To save you the trouble, the country is a mess. It is divided into several warring and rival factions. No central government exists. There is everything from sharia law to socialism to just plain chaos.

    There is also a real interesting movie call "Black Hawk Down." It was set in 1991 when basically the central government of Somalia went belly up and President Clinton set in troops to help restore order or whatever. It didn't go well. But to say Somalia has some strong centralized government would be false. Is it as chaotic as 1991? Maybe not as some warlords have more control over their areas than others. I'm not sure a lot of Americans are jumping at the chance to set up McDonald franchises. I wouldn't ride around in a boat offshore either...

  • louie Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Aug. 8, 2012 7:14 a.m.

    You need only to look at Asia where historically and even currently those countries with the strongest economies are one with exceptionally strong and orderderly governments. Indeed under the British influence both Hong Kong and Singapore have flourished.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Aug. 8, 2012 8:21 a.m.

    WRZ and Mountanman

    Reference Somalia. The following is from the CIA World Fact Book:

    Government type: no permanent national government; transitional, parliamentary federal government

    Constitution: none in force note: a Transitional Federal Charter was established in February 2004 and is expected to serve as the basis for a future constitution in Somalia

    Government - note: although a transitional government was created in 2004, other regional and local governing bodies continue to exist and control various regions of the country, including the self-declared Republic of Somaliland in northwestern Somalia and the semi-autonomous State of Puntland in northeastern Somalia

    So . . . they have not yet dug themselves out of the hole reference having a functioning govt.

    BTW, per capita GDP is about $600 which puts them about 5th from the bottom (out of 194 countries).

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 8, 2012 11:44 a.m.

    "I think you'll find that a church did most of it... under the tutelage of Brigham Young who just happened to be governor AND a significant church leader."

    Yes, Alfred, what that is called is a theocracy, and I believe if you look into it you will find that a theocracy is a form of government. In fact it is a rather strong form of government. That is what the LDS church set up in early Utah. There is absolutely no way that the settlers of the Salt Lake Valley would have succeeded, let alone set up businesses, without a government.

    Maybe part of the problem here is that people might not understand what constitutes a government. For instance many of those who see government as "the problem", also praise the founders, apparently forgetting, or never knowing, that the main thing the founders did, everything they fought for, was to establish a government. That was their entire goal. That is ALL the Constitution does, is set up a government. It is the ONLY thing it does.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 8, 2012 5:44 p.m.

    @Redshirt
    "Remember recently Obama when discussing businesses, said "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.""

    A little hard to forget considering the daily reminders conservatives gives.

    "Since then it has only been made worse as Obama spokesmen have said that he was referring to infrastructure, and how government made it possible for businesses to succeed."

    Because he was referring to infrastructure and I don't even know what your problem is because within a week of that comment from Obama we got this from Romney.

    "There are a lot of people in government who help us and allow us to have an economy that works and allow entrepreneurs and business leaders of various kinds to start businesses and create jobs. We all recognize that. That's an important thing.... I know that you recognize that a lot of people help you in a business. Perhaps the banks, the investors. There's no question your mom and dad. Your school teachers. The people that provide roads, the fire, and the police. A lot of people help."

    I agree with both of them, because I'm consistent.

  • BRM Pleasant Grove, Utah
    Aug. 10, 2012 4:32 p.m.

    Nobody has taken Obama's statement out of context. The words are absolutely plain. People try to explain what he actually ment but his words are clear. Government never gave us anysthing. They take money from us in taxes and then build roads etc. I have never built anything myself with out the contribution of someone else. Someone built my home. I payed them (I am paying them). Someone built my car and I paid them. Government built my road and I payed them. You can quibble about when I actually paid. Obama is saying that he wants you to show your gratitude by paying more money in taxes. Paying a "reasonable" tax in necessary and desireable but we don't owe Obama anything because taxes paid in the past have been used to give us a benefit.