It aint necessarily so - that big-government is bad

[ocean515]

"Subjective"? (Which means "pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual.")

Have you looked at how the study was made? Across entire populations? Excerpt: .

So, yes, 50,000 human beings were selected to respond and that large a selection is a bona fide "sampling" given the population size.

You just don't like the results. So welcome to a Brave New "Old World", meaning the EU ...

Yes, subjective. Did you read the study?

"We assessed respondents' subjective well-being using a very straightforward question: 'All things considered, how satisfied are you with your life as a whole these days?'"

Read more at: Bigger government makes for more satisfied people, international study finds​

That is a subjective question, no other way to look at it.

And all the countries in the top tier are small countries.

So what is wrong with my statement?

The UK has many of the same cradle to grave social programs as the NordicScandinavian Nations, and yet look where it ranked.

I guess you just don't like someone pointing out obvious things, which you perceive as threats to your promotion of the conclusion.

That being the possible genesis for your comment to me, I question why you would post this in the first place.

 

[Lafayette]

I don't care a damn if it were proven that big central government did everything better than any other form of government. It would be illegitimate here, because it would be the very opposite of the government our Constitution designs--and that is all there is to it. There is another name for illegitimate, arbitrary government: Tyranny.

Which means "democracy in America is a baked cake" and all that's left is to enjoy the dessert?

Wow, what perfect intellectual myopia ... !

(What planet do you live on? I hadn't realized that the Internet extended to other galaxies! ;^)

 

[joG]

Yes, when I penned that I was aware the stockholders & shareholders in publicly traded corporations would somewhat ameliorate my argument.

But those at the top of even public corporations are withdrawing huge amounts of capital out of the societal share, and I'd argue far more than their supposed value (in a societal sense). And then we have the proliferation of LLC's and other avoidance mechanisms used by individual and small group entities to shelter their capital at far more effective tax rates than other individuals (i.e., the working class).

As to other countries with lower tax rates, well that's the problem: It becomes a race to the bottom! Now those in the bottom countries where the capital is flowing would say this is a good thing, as they watch theirselves rise. So we're kinda' screwed here in this manner, in the first world! :doh

It isn't any more a race to the bottom than competition always is.

 

[Chomsky]

It isn't any more a race to the bottom than competition always is.

Which is why we try to temper capitalism with social restraint ... (if/when possible) ...

 

[joG]

Which is why we try to temper capitalism with social restraint ... (if/when possible) ...

Which is very often or even usually the wrong reflex.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Which is very often or even usually the wrong reflex.

Oh, how wrong you are here, Jo.

We really, really, really have to temper capitalism with some social restraints...or it will bring itself crashing down completely.

 

[Chomsky]

Which is very often or even usually the wrong reflex.

Sometimes perhaps, don't know if I'd go as far as 'usually'. Completely free & unbridled free-market capitalism descends into monopoly & oligarchy, resulting in tyranny.

 

[matchlight]

Which means "democracy in America is a baked cake" and all that's left is to enjoy the dessert?

Wow, what perfect intellectual myopia ... !

(What planet do you live on? I hadn't realized that the Internet extended to other galaxies! ;^)

If you were trying to make an argument about the kind of U.S. government the Constitution authorizes, I missed it. Maybe you imagine it authorizes whatever federal controls you and people who share your views may concoct. If so, please cite the specific sections and clauses that you imagine confer that authority.

 

[Absentglare]

Which is very often or even usually the wrong reflex.

Based on what- your pre-existing, non-reason-based ideology ?

 

[Lafayette]

If you were trying to make an argument about the kind of U.S. government the Constitution authorizes, I missed it. Maybe you imagine it authorizes whatever federal controls you and people who share your views may concoct. If so, please cite the specific sections and clauses that you imagine confer that authority.

Concoct? You mean we brainstorm and "invent them". Cheap shot that. I am talking about the fundamental human rights of fairness with which to pursue a decent existence for our families.

(Get it? Because I don't think you have the least understanding of what Income Disparity is or how it plagues our country.)

The Constitution got the country started. Since then, both the country and its market-economy have evolved multiple times.

People on this forum, Conservatives, keep harping back to a time way back in history, when America was an entirely different country.

Since, the rules are being made by the Legislature and the Executive we elect. With a Supreme Court that tries to make the relationship between present legislation and the originating documents (Constitution, Bill of Rights).

And, if you pack that court ideologically, what you get is the mess we have had with the Roberts court.

With a wee bit of courage the American people are going to demand Fundamental Change and that change will employ drastic changes in the unfair tax-codes relevant to High-incomes and Corporations.

That is what I am talking about? Now, what is it that you were you talking about ... ?

 

[joG]

Oh, how wrong you are here, Jo.

We really, really, really have to temper capitalism with some social restraints...or it will bring itself crashing down completely.

If you want to call them "social" measures. On the other hand, I am not sure which measures you refer to.

 

[joG]

Sometimes perhaps, don't know if I'd go as far as 'usually'. Completely free & unbridled free-market capitalism descends into monopoly & oligarchy, resulting in tyranny.

"Free market" is always embedded in a set of rules without which markets do not work efficiently. These rules and their enforcement can mostly be interpreted as fundamental public goods. It is, when the state produces goods that are no longer "public" in the sense that they would be more efficiently produced by private enterprise that a society goes wrong.

 

[joG]

Based on what- your pre-existing, non-reason-based ideology ?

That maybe. A long time ago, I looked professionally at the way governments work and what makes them economically efficient or inefficient. I have looked at the social systems of a few countries in detail and followed their developments. It supported the earlier work I had done. This has become part of the base on which I would estimate political calls for policies. In that respect, I guess, you might

 

[Frank Apisa]

If you want to call them "social" measures. On the other hand, I am not sure which measures you refer to.

Then why did you make the remark you made in your #30 here?

 

[joG]

Then why did you make the remark you made in your #30 here?

Only because the colloquial use of "social" usually implies both public and public goods without differentiation. But I might have jumped to conclusions.

 

[matchlight]

Concoct? You mean we brainstorm and "invent them". Cheap shot that. I am talking about the fundamental human rights of fairness with which to pursue a decent existence for our families.

(Get it? Because I don't think you have the least understanding of what Income Disparity is or how it plagues our country.)

The Constitution got the country started. Since then, both the country and its market-economy have evolved multiple times.

People on this forum, Conservatives, keep harping back to a time way back in history, when America was an entirely different country.

Since, the rules are being made by the Legislature and the Executive we elect. With a Supreme Court that tries to make the relationship between present legislation and the originating documents (Constitution, Bill of Rights).

And, if you pack that court ideologically, what you get is the mess we have had with the Roberts court.

With a wee bit of courage the American people are going to demand Fundamental Change and that change will employ drastic changes in the unfair tax-codes relevant to High-incomes and Corporations.

I'll have to remember, next time I talk to a judge, to say, "Your honor, I feel your ruling violates my fundamental human right to fairness." Who can doubt that any judge would find that an accurate and compelling statement of the law? Why, it's right up there with, say, "Your honor, that would make my client feel all icky."

Your encomium to collectivism carefully dodged my question. So that everyone reading can have a chance to see you dodge it again, I will repeat it. Please cite the specific sections and clauses of the Constitution of the U.S. that you imagine confer the authority for whatever controls you and people who share your views may concoct? Incidentally, the Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution, not some separate document.

 

[matchlight]

Stalin ran a very small government.

Pol Pot ran a very small government.

Saddam Hussein ran a very small government.

Oh...yeah...

...Adolf Hitler ran a very small government.

Small government sucks.

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. Totalitarian dictatorships, in which one central government controls almost every decision that affects the lives of the people under its jurisdiction, are in no way "small government."

 

[Frank Apisa]

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. Totalitarian dictatorships, in which one central government controls almost every decision that affects the lives of the people under its jurisdiction, are in no way "small government."

C'mon, Match...very often those "governments" are just one person.

 

[Ikari]

C'mon, Match...very often those "governments" are just one person.

First off, rarely is it one person. Even Kings have their councils. Second, a small ruling population doesn't mean a government is "small". That's a silly notion at best. Do you think Stallin walked around killing all those people his regime killed? Of course not. There were huge government structures, agencies, policing bodies to oversee it all. Just because Stalin called the shots doesn't mean the government was small. For the amount of intrusion and power he wielded over his own People, Stalin required quite a large government to act on his edicts and keep his people in line.

 

[Frank Apisa]

First off, rarely is it one person. Even Kings have their councils. Second, a small ruling population doesn't mean a government is "small". That's a silly notion at best. Do you think Stallin walked around killing all those people his regime killed? Of course not. There were huge government structures, agencies, policing bodies to oversee it all. Just because Stalin called the shots doesn't mean the government was small. For the amount of intrusion and power he wielded over his own People, Stalin required quite a large government to act on his edicts and keep his people in line.

Yeah, sure.

Anything to justify the desire for small government.

Society requires BIG government...and the people who have trouble with that ought to consider Antarctica.

 

[Ikari]

Yeah, sure.

Anything to justify the desire for small government.

Society requires BIG government...and the people who have trouble with that ought to consider Antarctica.

Nice deflection to avoid the logical pitfalls of your invented definition.

Society, BTW, doesn't require a large government. Large governments can be made to work if properly limited, but if you do not limit large government, you end up with structures like Stalin's Russia or Mao's China.

A democratic and free society requires a restricted government.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Nice deflection to avoid the logical pitfalls of your invented definition.

Society, BTW, doesn't require a large government. Large governments can be made to work if properly limited, but if you do not limit large government, you end up with structures like Stalin's Russia or Mao's China.

A democratic and free society requires a restricted government.

Like I said...ANYTHING!

 

[Ikari]

Like I said...ANYTHING!

So pretty much, you cannot contract an argument to the contrary, so you are left with childish deflections.

Come back when you're prepared to debate.

 

[Frank Apisa]

So pretty much, you cannot contract an argument to the contrary, so you are left with childish deflections.

Come back when you're prepared to debate.

Debate what?

You want small government.

Go live in Antarctica. No government at all.

The "small government" (it is all about me and screw everyone else) group is full of themselves...and of anything else you want to think of.

 

[Ikari]

Debate what?

You want small government.

Go live in Antarctica. No government at all.

The "small government" (it is all about me and screw everyone else) group is full of themselves...and of anything else you want to think of.

Why should I go to Antarctica? What a childish argument. Stooping to your level, you want big government, move to China.

Your "argument" is nothing more than a series of assumptions and insults. Once again you address nothing and just spit out your own personal bias as if you've made a point.

Deflection and name calling is all you have, Frank. Go ahead, post a reply and prove me right get again.