- Joined
- Jun 23, 2005
- Messages
- 32,513
- Reaction score
- 22,793
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
I can agree, kind of.... However larger entities are not nimble nor efficient. Think about the cost and time involved with just providing for oversight and accountability measures. I some times wonder if ignoring minor fraud would be cheaper than compliance regulations and oversight measures.... just a thought.
Complete and utter BS spouted by those with an agenda to not examine what form of govt is best.....because they are so bent on not wanting any restrictions upon their greed.
The life outcomes of the least fortunate is very often a measurement of the effectiveness of government.
Complete and utter BS spouted by those with an agenda to not examine what form of govt is best.....because they are so bent on not wanting any restrictions upon their greed.
The life outcomes of the least fortunate is very often a measurement of the effectiveness of government.
So what you are essentially telling me is that small government is incapable of corruption? I believe there is some African dictators that would snicker at that notion.
I want better government. There are effective governments out there, just look at Scandinavia. Would you rather live in Norway (big but effective government) or Haiti (very, very small government)?
That said, I think that a better government is going to be much more decentralized with many of its functions than the one we have.
It is very debateble that Norway or any scandanavian government is better.
Your choices are not valid as they are too limited and other choices exist. A very small government in a first world nation like the USA works best.
Which do you feel is more important: A government that is smaller, or a government that can solve important problems more effectively?
There are no very small governments in first world fully developed nations. Perhaps that should tell you something...
No nation is fully developed. Development is on going.
No evidence proves or suggests big government is necessary for it.
Much suggests the opposite.
Which do you feel is more important: A government that is smaller, or a government that can solve important problems more effectively?
No nation is fully developed. Development is on going.
No evidence proves or suggests big government is necessary for it.
Much suggests the opposite.
Libertarianism always boils down to the same kind argument that the Communists use: "Communism isn't a failure, its never really been tried before."
Maybe I am too much of a pragmatist, but all I can say is that there is not a first world libertarian nation on earth tells me something.
Libertarianism always boils down to the same kind argument that the Communists use: "Communism isn't a failure, its never really been tried before."
Maybe I am too much of a pragmatist, but all I can say is that there is not a first world libertarian nation on earth tells me something.
What exactly does it tell you?
The difference is libertarianism has been tried in the first 100 years of the USA and it worked very well.
WHich is precisely what led to the on going development of the first world which has been slowed down by big government.
We weren't a first world nation then, try again. You are comparing pre-industrialization to today's economy / world. It's an absurd comparison. Moreover, you must be arguing that a libertarian government was one that tolerated slavery, wholesale genocide of native peoples, and so on.
What is the difference between libertarians and anarchists anyway?
When you get down to it, none that I can see. At least between the big "L" libertarians and anarchists.
When you get down to it, none that I can see. At least between the big "L" libertarians and anarchists.
That is an interesting dichotomy. What in the world makes you think that a larger government can solve important problems more effectively?
Apparently I suck at asking questions, but to clarify the confusion, larger government wasn't presented as an option. The choice is between a government that is small, or a government that can solve problems effectively. It is a question of ideological priority -- smaller or better.
When you get down to it, none that I can see. At least between the big "L" libertarians and anarchists.
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?