Any choice between extremes is a false choice. The appropriate goal is proportional government.if both are equally bad then why does one side or the other keep pretending to be morally superior?
if both are equally bad then why does one side pretend to be morally superior to the other?
So small government inevitably turns into big government, and big government turns into a totalitarian state.
Sounds about right, but it has nothing to do with the market or with capitalism.
Before reading all the responses ... thank you for the post. I'm so confused at why each side acts like only the other side is dangerous. One can easily predict the [living hell] we will get if one side or the other goes unchecked.Right vs Left
if both are equally bad then why does one side pretend to be morally superior to the other?
Well, technically ... the market dictates that profit-seeking firms attempt to influence government policy, gain advantages, enshrine those advantages into law (via bigger government), etc. ... rational actors seeking profits do prefer to have a big brother government on their side and all. This negative effect might be limited by ... no, Citizens United, I guess we have to live with it because SCOTUS says so.So small government inevitably turns into big government, and big government turns into a totalitarian state.
Sounds about right, but it has nothing to do with the market or with capitalism.
Absolutely! Also, small government is needed to control big governments and their destruction of civil rights.Big Government is needed to monitor and control small governments and their destruction of civil rights.
Well, technically ... the market dictates that profit-seeking firms attempt to influence government policy, gain advantages, enshrine those advantages into law (via bigger government), etc. ... rational actors seeking profits do prefer to have a big brother government on their side and all.
Right vs Left
if both are equally bad then why does one side pretend to be morally superior to the other?
Fine, replace with "the profit motive dictates".Markets are voluntary by definition, they do not "dictate" anything. That politicians choose to solicit bribes from big corporations in exchange for political favors is a feature of democracy in general and the regulatory state in particular. It is government regulation that allows the state control over certain production and distribution decisions. Politicians and bureaucrats then sell their influence to the highest bidder, often right out in the open. You'll note government regulation always favors large firms over small. The fact that lobbying pays big dividends is a feature of democracy, not the market.
Fine, replace with "the profit motive dictates".
Wow, smoke less of the stuff. I am pointing out a logical result of the profit motive. You are ... losing your ****.So your complaint is that politicians and bureaucrats want to improve their own lives just like anybody else?
The next step in your quest to absolve the state of making us all worse off is, "human nature dictates".
The main thing wrong with this post is the assumption that people like me (liberals) are just mirror images of people like him:So small government inevitably turns into big government, and big government turns into a totalitarian state.
Sounds about right, but it has nothing to do with the market or with capitalism.
This is wrong on multiple levels. First of all, while conservatives see smaller government as an end in itself, liberals don’t see bigger government the same way. Think about it: while you often see conservatives crow about, say, reducing discretionary spending as a good thing just because the number is down, do you ever see liberals crowing about a rise in spending, never mind what on? Liberals want government to do certain things, like provide essential health care; fix the battered infrastructure and build investments for the future. The size of government per se isn’t the objective.'MTAtech is a liberal because he wants bigger government. I’m an libertarian because I want smaller government.'
Markets are voluntary by definition, they do not "dictate" anything. That politicians choose to solicit bribes from big corporations in exchange for political favors is a feature of democracy in general and the regulatory state in particular. It is government regulation that allows the state control over certain production and distribution decisions. Politicians and bureaucrats then sell their influence to the highest bidder, often right out in the open. You'll note government regulation always favors large firms over small. The fact that lobbying pays big dividends is a feature of democracy, not the market.
If corporations make more money by buying politicans and having them write legislation for them, why would they care about your supposes free market?
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?