Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How naive. Markets are amoral. They do not magically produce pure good. Free market dogma is nothing but resignation to the worst that can happen, while the tools to prevent it lie right before us. And you very much did join society to have your income redistributed. Division of labor requires it. In the simple matter of common defense, we as a society do not entrust that task to 4-year old girls and 80-year old men. We send primarily 18-to-25-year olds out for that, and the rest of us pay taxes to support them. That's income redistributed from you and me to them. Any questions?
How naive. Markets are amoral. They do not magically produce pure good.
Markets produce good because no one can make a penny in the free market without providing value to someone else, or else why would they do business with them?
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
Free market dogma is nothing but resignation to the worst that can happen, while the tools to prevent it lie right before us.
Human rights are not "dogma", they are the basis of civilization, and the "tools" of which you speak are violence and tyranny!
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
And you very much did join society to have your income redistributed. Division of labor requires it. In the simple matter of common defense, we as a society do not entrust that task to 4-year old girls and 80-year old men. We send primarily 18-to-25-year olds out for that, and the rest of us pay taxes to support them. That's income redistributed from you and me to them. Any questions?
Well, saganista clearly knows what I did and why I did it better than I do, let's make him (her?) a dictator for life! We need his wise commandments in order to spend money on our children and save for our old age - without him we are helpless! No cooperation can take place without his blessing, no matter how much the individuals involved may want it. Human beings just simply don't have free will, we are mere projections of saganista's will!
Life as we know it wouldn't disappear without a big government. We did fine in this country for 257 years with a quite limited federal government. 76 years of big government and we're in the brink of total collapse in a world full of enemies who wish to destroy us because of said government's policies.
I'm not sure what 50's movie that you've been watching but*your fantasized view of history*while charming is wholly inaccurate, if fact wildly*so.
To begin with, one of the first things the US government did was to do away with interference of individuals and states in interstate commerce without which a national network of unimpeded travel would have been impossible. Likewise without immense government investment the very idea of westward expansion would not have been possible. Think Lewis and Clark, troops to protect westward settlers and a intercontinental railroad.
As for the idyllic past:
The Department of the Interior was established in 1849
The Department of Labor, 1888
Bureau of Mines, 1910
Interstate Commerce Commission, 1887
To argue that the Federal government was some sort of hidden little group that had no hand in the day to day lives of Americans is absurd.
If/when you come up with a reply that's coherent, be sure to post that one as well...
Just because you fail to understand it doesn't mean it isn't coherent, and I'm not willing to spend the time necessary to crawl into your head and fix what is broken. Educate yourself! Read more!
[...] To argue that the Federal government was some sort of hidden little group that had no hand in the day to day lives of Americans is absurd.
I agree that it's not good to appeal to tradition, but the size and power of government did increase quite a bit. In 1910, an average American only had to slave for the government from the beginning of the year to January 22nd (5%) to pay off his tax burden, or even less if he was in one of the rural states. Today one has to slave until April 23rd (31%), and that doesn't even include things like inflation, effect of regulation on consumer goods, etc, etc, etc. So a point that government grew drastically over the past century is a valid one.
Last edited by Alex Libman; 01-05-2009 at 06:36 AM..
Tell us how, for instance, you would insure that the food you buy is safe to eat.
Assuming, of course, that you are not planning subsistence farming or hunting and gathering for your livelihood.
I think the management at places like Jewel's or Domincks are not interested in losing revenue. So they are going to make sure that their products are good so they won't lose money. Plus the spoiling of food doesn't occur as fast as it use to. Due to modern science and with all that modern science has done. There won't be much of a need for the growth or current size of government. All that beauracracy does is lose hope for the good people. Especially with the size and control the government has. It is very scary and what's worse is that no one cares.
In 1910 the US had a population of 92 million people, and 46 states (hell Oklahoma had only been a state for 3 years) most of the West was still wild and barely inhabited. There was no interstate highway system, hell there were barely any highways whatsoever, the Model T having been in production of 2 years! No air travel, electrification was only in its second decade for major cities, and the average work day*was 12 hours, six days a week. So if you would like to go back to the idyllic days of 1910 when there were no workers rights, no child labor laws, and most workers lived in filth and pestilence, great.
By the way, "government" was responsible for changing all of that and much of it during the Roosevelt administration.
You have a point buried in there somewhere, ovcatto?
And libertarians are not past-focused, in fact we tend to me far more future-focused than everyone else. Without government interference, the economy would grow faster, and the benefits would accumulate exponentially. For example: we've had cell phone technology since the 1960s (the reason we didn't have analog cell phones was government regulations), so in a world where government was capped at 5% perhaps we could have had them in the 1920s, and by now - 600 MPH flying RV's for the lower-middle class!
I think the management at places like Jewel's or Domincks are not interested in losing revenue. So they are going to make sure that their products are good so they won't lose money. Plus the spoiling of food doesn't occur as fast as it use to. Due to modern science and with all that modern science has done. There won't be much of a need for the growth or current size of government. All that beauracracy does is lose hope for the good people. Especially with the size and control the government has. It is very scary and what's worse is that no one cares.
Actually many places of business will be more than happy to sell you dangerous product to save a few bucks, without the reality of government regulation.
Where do you think that "Modern science and all that Modern Science has done" received the funding for their food preservation research and development? All anonymous private benefactors?
Yes the government can overstep its boundaries as it did with the Patriot Act, but that is why we have checks and balances set up in our system.
People that think today's era of globalization they can go back to the "Old Wild West" are just loonie.
In 1910 the US had a population of 92 million people, and 46 states (hell Oklahoma had only been a state for 3 years) most of the West was still wild and barely inhabited. There was no interstate highway system, hell there were barely any highways whatsoever, the Model T having been in production of 2 years! No air travel, electrification was only in its second decade for major cities, and the average work day*was 12 hours, six days a week. So if you would like to go back to the idyllic days of 1910 when there were no workers rights, no child labor laws, and most workers lived in filth and pestilence, great.
By the way, "government" was responsible for changing all of that and much of it during the Roosevelt administration.
Changing that with mounds and mounds of debt....and we wonder why it seems like a house of cards today. After 5 years of FDR unemployment went from around the 23% mark to 19%. After 7 years the war was underway and we started up sizing the navy and rates dropped to around 15%. 2 Years later it was down to 4.7%. FDR had very little do with anything other than being the fore father of debt spending you Bush haters whine about so much.
Last edited by BigJon3475; 01-05-2009 at 07:15 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
