- Joined
- Jan 24, 2013
- Messages
- 20,738
- Reaction score
- 6,290
- Location
- Sunnyvale California
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
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.
Why is the size of government considered a factor when it is the qualities of the elected officials in said government that matters?
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
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.
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.
Can you name a single successful nation with small government ?
It is this, that is incorrect: "There are only two sources of tax-dollars, one personal and the other corporate." Therefore the logic behind Graphs like the one above are false. The tax "paid by corporations" is inevitably paid by people, as it is always a person at the end of the economic chain. It is also wrong in the sense that the tax might paid by a person or a company. What economic function is impacted is quite another matter. Does it reduce savings and investment or does consumption take the hit in the next period. Or is the consumption impact in 2 years or 15?
Your argument is at a much too populist level to be of anything but populist value.
What I have already said pretty much says what I have to say to you, Ikari.
If you want to sulk and pout because the government is too big...go where the government is not too big.
Antarctica seems like that place.
Our government is just about the right size for me...so I am staying right here.
Again, demonstrating that you have no argument. Thanks.
Generally speaking, larger and less restrained governments are harder to control. Also it is easier for the government to abuse it's power and act against the freedom and liberty of its people. Given enough time, large and unrestrained governments will do just that (just look at our own).
The quality of leadership certainly matters as well. If you had the brightest, most empathetic, ideology minded, mindful, well-meaning, etc. politicians out there, then it would be easier to use big government without the potential pit falls. But how often can you get an entire group composed of just that quality? Heck, look at this election cycle, we're going to be left deciding between Clinton and Trump.
Even if we could get the crème de la crème to start, it's not long term sustainable. You'll eventually develop the entrenched party supporters out for their own power. In an unrestrained government, this can lead to significant problems and blowback against the liberties of the People.
In theory you can use big government to achieve some noble ends, but keeping big government in its place is exceptionally hard. The more power government grabs and wields, the harder it is to control it. Best practice is to limit the size and scope of government to more manageable sizes. However, if you are to use big government, it must also be restricted. The way it can use its power must be limited and controlled to prevent abuse.
Is BigGov such a bad thing?
To see some remarks on this forum, one might be led to believe that BigGov was Evil Incarnate.
However, a study shows that such might be a very, very wrong conclusion: Bigger government makes for more satisfied people, international study finds. Note that this study was done by questioning nationals in the countries covered by the scope of the investigation.
Excerpt:
"Elsewhere is better?" No, that is not necessarily so either. It depends upon many aspects, first and foremost of which are Social Factors (acceptance of foreigners, language barriers, standard of living, etc.)
For instance, consider the above ranking. The Italians are some of the most happy people you can live with and amongst. Unfortunately the Italians cannot seem to find and elect competent politicians to run their economy "from the top down". In fact, when you look at the lack of linkage between Good Governance and Ethnicity, note in the above list how many Latin countries are ranked at the bottom, and how many nordic countries at the top. And yet, when it comes to retirement, the bottom ranked countries are some of the most popular destination for retirees from other European countries at the top of the list!
We cannot say, either, that the US is very high up the scale. In fact, the conclusion from that list is obvious: BigGovernance in the form of important Social Services provided and well-managed by government administrations in the EU countries are why the top-nations in the above listing are European. In fact, that is the reason, I submit, that the nordic countries of Europe have such a high-ranking.
OK, now let's all chew on that conclusion .... !
NB: Notice that the work, work, work nation of Japan, which makes true the adage, "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy".
Plenty of argument there.
You don't like it because you do not agree with it...so now you are doing the Internet forum equivalent of stomping your feet and holding your breath.
Who said anything to the contrary?Govt. is made of people so your choice is which people do you want abusing you. People in the private or public sector are equally capable of abuse, but it is just Govt. that is charged with protecting the people, the private sector has no such mandate. I'll take my chances with an elected Govt. thank-you
if big government is so great, why aren't those folks whom live in totalitarian dictatorships the most happy/satified people on the planet?
Why don't you move to Antarctica.
Hahaha
All you have is some sophmoric argument about moving to Antarctica. You've never actually addressed any points.
I see Antarctica has replaced Somalia in the idiot meme.
meh, at least they are trying to be more original now..... still dumb as ****, but more original..... so they got that going for them.
I've addressed all the "points."
You have MORE freedom from intrusive government than damn near all the other humans who ever lived on this planet...and all you are doing is crying "But I wanna do what I wanna do and I wanna do it when I wanna do it."
You can't handle all the freedom you have, Ikari, and you are asking for more?
Grow up.
I am satisfied with the government we have. I wish it were better...more effective, but I recognize the limitations of governance...especially with people like you in the populace.
I am not going anywhere.
You are discontent. Things are NOT going to change drastically or remarkably in the direction you are looking...so suggesting you relocate is NOT sophomoric. It makes sense.
I wish you could see it.
You've addressed no points. Saying "move to Antarctica" is not addressing any points. It's deflection. Every post you've made to me in this thread has been deflection or personal bias. No substance.
There are.plenty of examples of bad governments that were large. Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, etc. Big government in and of itself isn't a good thing. One can use it, but it's powers must be restrained and regulated.
Who said anything to the contrary?
I've addressed all the points.
You do NOT have an appreciation for the fact that you are more free from governmental intrusion than almost every human who has ever lived on this planet in a society. There is no reason to take your demands for greater freedom of that sort...seriously.
Learn to appreciate what you have...then strive for more.
Short of that...live like the primitives did...without any government.
And Antarctica seems to the be best place for that. (You are correct...you cannot move there. So suck it up and learn to live in civilization.)
So you agree that we need a strong enough Govt. to protect us from abusers in the private sector which means giving the Govt. the power to regulate commerce, corporations, and financial institutions..
Repeating that you've addressed the points does not actually mean you have addressed the points. You've merely said "move to Antarctica", while a sophmoric argument, it is not one that addresses any points.
Your " arguments" are nothing more than a series of dismissals and insults. That's just a fact. If you grow up and actuay start debating points, then we can continue. But if all you want to do is scream "nuh uh!!!!" and run away, then there is nothing to your arguments and they are not worth addressing.
I have attempted to respond to all of your points.
It reduces to: You are dissatisfied with our government and governance...and I am reasonably satisfied with it.
It certainly affords me (and you) a GREAT DEAL more freedom from governmental interference than almost anyone else ever living on this planet in a society has ever obtained.
I am sorry you are unable to acknowledge that.
When and where did you attempt to respond to any point, Frank? You came out of the gate with "move to Antarctica" and other dismissals.
Even this copy and paste "rebuttal" you keep putting in about being satisfied with our current government is completely inconsequential. First off, even though the American government has expanded, it is still in some ways limited. There are restrictions on its use of power. Which, as I said earlier, big government can be utilized but it is necessary to restrict and restrain it's power. Second, we used to have more freedoms, so the course of our government evolution shows exactly my point, big government is often dangerous and it may start to act counter to its original purpose. Third, America being relatively alright does not mean that big government in general is good. Stalin's Russia and Mao's China highlight the dangers that can become of big government systems if they are left unconstrained.
So where have you countered any point Frank? All you can muster is "move to Antarctica"
Until you can up the quality and integrity of your arguments, we are done. Move along.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?