It aint necessarily so - that big-government is bad

[Ikari]

I have dealt with all the points you raised.

You seem to be dissatisfied with life here in the United States.

Move somewhere else if you cannot adjust.

In the meantime...I love it here...and I respect our government. As far as I am concerned, I have more personal freedom from the intrusions of government than almost all the people who have ever lived in society on this planet.

But some people...like you...just cannot be grateful for the advantages they have been given.

I'm not trying to give you a hard time, Ikari. I genuinely feel sorry for you.

Where, Frank? Once again you Dodge, once again your argument comes down to insults. Where have you dealt with all the points? Show it.

 

[OpportunityCost]

I have dealt with all the points you raised.

Nah, not really.

You seem to be dissatisfied with life here in the United States.

There is a difference between dissatisfied and the belief it can be better.

Move somewhere else if you cannot adjust.

By all means, if you have a bad neighbor move in, moving as far away as humanly possible is an adult solution.

In the meantime...I love it here...and I respect our government. As far as I am concerned, I have more personal freedom from the intrusions of government than almost all the people who have ever lived in society on this planet.

Actually the US has moved down the freedom index quite a bit.

But some people...like you...just cannot be grateful for the advantages they have been given.

No. Appreciating the advantages and believing they can be improved are not exclusive.

I'm not trying to give you a hard time, Ikari. I genuinely feel sorry for you.

Me too, she's been trying to get you to make a coherent argument.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Where, Frank? Once again you Dodge, once again your argument comes down to insults. Where have you dealt with all the points? Show it.

Read my posts...you'll see.

You are acting like a billionaire complaining that he does not have enough money.

You have more personal freedom from governmental intrusion than almost all of the people on this planet who have ever live in society...

...and instead of showing any kind of gratitude...you are crying that you do not have enough.

Terrible to witness. It must be distressing for you also.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Nah, not really.

There is a difference between dissatisfied and the belief it can be better.

By all means, if you have a bad neighbor move in, moving as far away as humanly possible is an adult solution.

Actually the US has moved down the freedom index quite a bit.

No. Appreciating the advantages and believing they can be improved are not exclusive.


Me too, she's been trying to get you to make a coherent argument.

Hi, OC. You too, huh?

You have more personal freedom of intrusion from government than almost anyone ever in history...but instead of showing gratitude, you moan.

Oh, well.

 

[Absentglare]

if big government is so great, why aren't those folks whom live in totalitarian dictatorships the most happy/satified people on the planet?

Because the idea of what government should be is not decided on the basis of one dimension (small versus large government) where the answer is always one of two extremes.

Of course, that's a critically minded approach that doesn't appeal to blind ideologues who demand simple answers to complex problems.

 

[Absentglare]

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.

All successful countries have big governments.

What you are doing is cherry picking, and it's not a persuasive argument.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Hi, OC. You too, huh?

You have more personal freedom of intrusion from government than almost anyone ever in history...but instead of showing gratitude, you moan.

Oh, well.

I have immense gratitude. I'm also of the belief that the shape of our government is determined by its citizens, if we want change, we have to work for it. This isn't dodge ball, Frank, you don't have to try to deflect everything, you could try responding in a meaningful way once in a while.

 

[Ikari]

Read my posts...you'll see.

You are acting like a billionaire complaining that he does not have enough money.

You have more personal freedom from governmental intrusion than almost all of the people on this planet who have ever live in society...

...and instead of showing any kind of gratitude...you are crying that you do not have enough.

Terrible to witness. It must be distressing for you also.

How about you just repost your where youve addressed the points. You can do that, can't you? I mean, after all, you've already done it. Should be trivial.

 

[Ikari]

All successful countries have big governments.

What you are doing is cherry picking, and it's not a persuasive argument.

Not all. Even America started with a small government and to this day, despite its efforts to the contrary, is still relatively constrained.

It's not cherry picking. Are you claiming that Stalin's Russia, Mao's China and countless other despotic regimes were.not exames of large.government?

Again, if you actually read anything I wrote, I didn't say that big government cannot be used or be useful. Only that if one does choose to enact big government, it must come with restrictions and regulations. Government left to its own devices will trend towards tyranny.

 

[Absentglare]

Not all. Even America started with a small government and to this day, despite its efforts to the contrary, is still relatively constrained.

It's not cherry picking. Are you claiming that Stalin's Russia, Mao's China and countless other despotic regimes were.not exames of large.government?

Again, if you actually read anything I wrote, I didn't say that big government cannot be used or be useful. Only that if one does choose to enact big government, it must come with restrictions and regulations. Government left to its own devices will trend towards tyranny.

America is the most successful "small government" right now. Of course, we were also very early to adopt the big government model in the early part of the century, back when we emerged as the worlds foremost superpower.

And there are plenty who claim that our government, small as it is (at least considering the expense of our military), is far too big. How do they come to this conclusion ?

Individual policy decisions should not be settled by their impact on the size of government. Arbitrarily shrinking government is not a worthy goal in and of itself.

 

[Lafayette]

if big government is so great, why aren't those folks whom live in totalitarian dictatorships the most happy/satified people on the planet?

Because in a totalitarian country (China, North Korea, Cuba), they are not allowed to elect with free-will their political representatives or national leaders?

Duhhhhhhhh ...

 

[Lafayette]

"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."

Of course you don't make the statement above.

But, in effect, a plaintif may begin the longgggg trek up the Judicial Ladder by contesting the judgement. And, with any luck, it goes all the way up to the Supreme Court.

Which is supreme in its judgement - that is, until 10/20 years later when a PotUS of an opposing political mentality can stuff it with "his/her people". Which can and has happened repeatedly over the life of a nation - most recently with the Bush Family of presidents.

It may be time to increase the number of judges on that bench.

 

[Lafayette]

Every post you've made to me in this thread has been deflection or personal bias. No substance. .

Such non-argument emotional responses are frequent on forums, and particularly this one.

It let's off steam but has no consequence whatsoever to the debate.

Moving right along ...

 

[Frank Apisa]

I have immense gratitude. I'm also of the belief that the shape of our government is determined by its citizens, if we want change, we have to work for it. This isn't dodge ball, Frank, you don't have to try to deflect everything, you could try responding in a meaningful way once in a while.

Mostly...I make meaningful comments...even if you are unable to recognize it.

Glad you have "immense gratitude" for the fact that you and the others here experience more personal freedom from governmental intrusion than almost everyone else who has ever lived in society. You ought to show it more...rather than harping on wanting more so often.

 

[Frank Apisa]

How about you just repost your where youve addressed the points. You can do that, can't you? I mean, after all, you've already done it. Should be trivial.

How about you just read back instead.

 

[joG]

So your argument amounts to "take my word for it," better known as an appeal to authority fallacy ?

No. Not at all. When someone asks an informed question or even only one that looks as though she were interested..... But you were just belligerent.

 

[joG]

I thought the free market determines prices so taxing corporations more would come out of their record PROFITS. Remember that only profits are taxed.

While it is true that a tax will usually impact profits, the story does not end there. The tax will also be paid for by a higher price charged the consumer, by a job cut or some other shift in prices and costs. Outside companies will evaluate their investments and the area with higher taxes will tend to be at a disadvantage. This will especially be the case, where the taxes are used for consumption (social programs) and not for investment (speedy permission decisions for activities). Inward investments will tend to decrease and the jobs and higher wages will go elsewhere.
You see, the impact ripples through the economy and can cause all sorts of unwanted change.

 

[Lafayette]

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.

Balderdash!

You have no basis whatsoever for such a judgement. No study whatsoever justifies this above statement; a product of your own sentiment, ie., personal concoction.

Nice try, but wrong place. We are not as ignorant as you may think ...

 

[Lafayette]

No. Not at all. When someone asks an informed question or even only one that looks as though she were interested..... But you were just belligerent.

Ad hominem

M r a ...

 

[Lafayette]

This is a joke. The countries with the biggest Governments and most controlling Governments have the lowest ratings. Did you fail to notice that? The top 4 have qualities most Libertarians would love, especially Switzerland.

Only the ignorant would come to such a conclusion.

Oversight by staffed ministries of public expenditures for social purpose does not mean, ipso facto, dictatorial control.

It means attention is given to the budget expenditures for said services, and, of course, the means necessary to deliver them. Which is the meaning of the ranking I gave in the above commentary.

Which is one helluva lot better than not having them at all. But what would Replicant knot-heads know about Social Democracy?

Nothing, nada, niente, rien, nichts, tipota ...

 

[Lafayette]

People are always content when provided bread and circuses. Especially when it's free or at a miniscule personal cost.

You sound like a broken record.

I give you proof-positive that citizens of some countries like to have BigGovernment dispensing social-services.

Rather than 20% of the entire national budget going to just Defense, when there is not even a war on this planet justifying the cost.

You think we are going to stop the jihadists with F-35s .... ?

 

[Lafayette]

But once government starts giving more then just the basics, they start skewing the economy for the worse and they start becoming increasingly inefficient, corrupt and wasteful. All federal government's are corrupt.

That is NOT the message being given by the study I posted, and frankly, you are "in denial". (Which is tantamount to a mental sickness.)

What idiocy ...

 

[Lafayette]

One of the few pros. At least it has some. I can't think of any involving Oligarchy or Dictatorship.

I can. Here it is from WikiP: Benevolent Dictatorship

Excerpt:

A benevolent dictatorship is a theoretical form of government in which an authoritarian leader exercises absolute political power over the state but is seen to do so for the benefit of the population as a whole. A benevolent dictator may allow for some democratic decision-making to exist, such as through public referenda or elected representatives with limited power. It might be seen as a republican form of enlightened despotism.

Too many "mights" in that definition not to my liking.

It's a good idea if one looks only at the results. But no people can live together without wanting to elect a government to set the rules and manage their application. Our sense of collective "order" is human nature. And, if you don't like it, go out and live in the wilds. (Many do!)

Except in the Greatest Nation on Earth, the US! There, by not voting, we let other people decide who runs the government - what it does, what it doesn't do. Then we get all hot-'n-bothered when it doesn't go "our way".

In politics, someone who does not vote has effectively sacrificed any opinion of "What a government should do" and "How it should do it". Those choices belong ONLY to those who vote.

So, if you didn't vote last elections, then you have no right to express an "opinion". :lol:

(Even without the right to do, people will express their opinion ...)

 

[countryboy]

While it is true that a tax will usually impact profits, the story does not end there. The tax will also be paid for by a higher price charged the consumer, by a job cut or some other shift in prices and costs. Outside companies will evaluate their investments and the area with higher taxes will tend to be at a disadvantage. This will especially be the case, where the taxes are used for consumption (social programs) and not for investment (speedy permission decisions for activities). Inward investments will tend to decrease and the jobs and higher wages will go elsewhere.
You see, the impact ripples through the economy and can cause all sorts of unwanted change.

I guess you didn't get the memo. Governments can raise taxes on business endlessly, and businesses will simply absorb the cost, never passing it on to the consumer. It's magic.

 

[joG]

I guess you didn't get the memo. Governments can raise taxes on business endlessly, and businesses will simply absorb the cost, never passing it on to the consumer. It's magic.

I love magic. Always have.