Why Small Government is Wrong

[JMHX]

The argument is not a new one; it has been passed down from the annals of the French Revolution through the Jeffersonians, on to the Laissez-Faires and now the Reagan Conservatives. Before I state my point, I want to make one definition clear, the meaning of the word conservative for the purpose of this essay. Conservative does not mean Neo-Con, the dominant wing of the Republican Party as of now. When I say Conservative, I mean it as it refers to the Reagan Republicans: Small government, minimal social programs, low levels of funding.

The debate between Liberal and Conservative as to how to best manage the government seems to deviate between two extremes: A Conservative-Libertarian view of America as a nation with a very limited, weak central government that has long given up things like Social Security, business regulation and legislation of abortion and gay rights; and a Liberal mother-state that provides universal health care, government-sponsored pharmaceutical programs, affirmative-action and other services. The Neo-Con compromise: A small government of weak social programs and business regulation but strict moral legislation, is foolish and does not deserve proper mention.

Conservatives argue that small-government will remove much of the bureaucratic red-tape that government places on corporations and individuals, and that both will mutually prosper with these restrictions removed. Conservatives argue that the removal of social programs in exchange for private interest organizations will equate to more efficient, more competitive pools of service providers. Conservatives argue that America as a whole - rich, middle-class and poor, will benefit from these reductions in government power.

These assumptions are based on the view that government is the problem, that the problems Conservatism seeks to remedy are inherently birthed by having a large government. This is not true. While government has institutionalized some of these problems, it is not the mother of them, and removal of government would not in any way solve the problems Conservatives argue against. On the contrary, a strong central government is the counterbalance necessary to keep unrestrained, laissez-fair greed and manipulation of markets in check. Without the limited regulation of free business, smaller organizations and individuals would find the wary peace between big and small business all but shattered, there being no more incentive to remain civil with government neutered beyond the point of regulation.

The problems Conservatives rail against are not the fault of the government, but are basic human tendencies: Greed, ambition for superiority, ambition for success and as a result, money. Without the regulatory enforcement of government, we would find that little has changed besides the ease with which men can dominate over other men. Conservatives, by attempting to neuter government, seek a social solution to a psychological problem. By removing government from the equation, Conservatives simply allow more room for individual actors restrained from unethical and illegal acts to now follow through with those acts. What so many seem not to realize is that the limited control over unchecked success of corporations also serves as a limit on the suffering of those who would not be able to compete in a free and open market.

Conservatism claims that the removal of strong government will help to fix an intractable part of human nature by removing the safeguards against it. The logic is flawed.

[Jose]

Here comes a few hundred posts on how all conservatives are facists and all liberals are communists.

This should be good.

[AdamRice]

Well I consider myself on the moderate/liberal side of the political chain. Although I know of instances where privatizing of a government organization would probably be more efficient and save money.

For example, my Dad works in Detroit as the area manager of adult foster care licensing in Wayne county. He recently moved up to this position for the increased salary it would yield, however he did not quite realize the extent of the mess he was getting himself into with this job.

According to him, about 90% of his employees are completely useless, they can't write or properly do their jobs. They don't know how to file complaints or just straight up don't feel like doing the work. Many of his employees also call in sick all the time. Basically you could sum it up that these individuals are being paid by the government for doing close to nothing.

My father is unable to fire any of these individuals that don't do their jobs because of unions and what not.

Now let's say they were to privatize this adult foster care licensing wing, it would now be possible to fire all the useless employees and replace them with trained new employees that actually do their job. Thus resulting in a more effective/frequent answering of complaints in foster care homes in Detroit.

There's this one guy named Carl who works there, Carl used to play for the NBA and according to my dad, he's interesting to talk to, but a lazy asshole.

So yes that's my two cents on privatizing certain government organizations.

[JMHX]

Yes, government could be made much smaller and simpler by removing all of its social programs and putting them in other hands. You can also make a clock much simpler by ripping out all of its gears, and build a house much quicker by skipping the foundation. These things work because of their complexity, not in spite of it, and although government does bring with it certain measured inefficiencies, the alternative - a nation ruled by unrestrained greed, jealousy, resentment, and the unreliable flowing of public passion - is certainly far more unstable and dangerous, a threat to itself and its neighbors.

[AdamRice]

At 1/6/07 12:23 AM, JMHX wrote: Yes, government could be made much smaller and simpler by removing all of its social programs and putting them in other hands. You can also make a clock much simpler by ripping out all of its gears, and build a house much quicker by skipping the foundation. These things work because of their complexity, not in spite of it, and although government does bring with it certain measured inefficiencies, the alternative - a nation ruled by unrestrained greed, jealousy, resentment, and the unreliable flowing of public passion - is certainly far more unstable and dangerous, a threat to itself and its neighbors.

J, I have a really hard time pinpointing what your political persona is. Would you consider yourself a moderate conservative, an extreme conservative, a sarcastic conservative, or one of those guys that says what needs to be said? Throw me a bone here.

And as for the foster care licensing situation, government funding of it works perfectly fine in cities like Lansing and Ann Arbor where the government paid employees aren't a bunch of dumb asses.

But in a messed up city like Detroit it doesn't work out so smoothly, you also have to factor in that Wayne county is a very large area. This means that you have people who are underqualified that are responsible for more foster care homes and complaints then employees in Lansing and Ann Arbor.

See the problem is that Detroit is a very messed up city, make no mistake about it. Some of the suburbs are nice, but the actual city has serious infrastructure problems. You run into the problem where all the people who actually have a decent education/work ethic would demand not to be placed in Detroit.

[JMHX]

At 1/6/07 12:32 AM, AdamRice wrote:

At 1/6/07 12:23 AM, JMHX wrote:

See the problem is that Detroit is a very messed up city, make no mistake about it. Some of the suburbs are nice, but the actual city has serious infrastructure problems. You run into the problem where all the people who actually have a decent education/work ethic would demand not to be placed in Detroit.

Privatizing a program, limiting the government, neutering its abilities would not help in this case, as what is happening in Detroit is not the cause of the government, but rather something that is intrinsic in people: They do not want to work somewhere that does not have opportunities for their educational background. By privatizing the program, you simply have the same program with a different title above it - no new opportunities for people of higher education, who will still feel compelled to move to the coasts to find work that fits their desired pay range and degree status. In this case, cutting government to shreds does not address the real problem.

[AdamRice]

At 1/6/07 12:43 AM, JMHX wrote:

At 1/6/07 12:32 AM, AdamRice wrote:

At 1/6/07 12:23 AM, JMHX wrote:

See the problem is that Detroit is a very messed up city, make no mistake about it. Some of the suburbs are nice, but the actual city has serious infrastructure problems. You run into the problem where all the people who actually have a decent education/work ethic would demand not to be placed in Detroit.

Privatizing a program, limiting the government, neutering its abilities would not help in this case, as what is happening in Detroit is not the cause of the government, but rather something that is intrinsic in people: They do not want to work somewhere that does not have opportunities for their educational background. By privatizing the program, you simply have the same program with a different title above it - no new opportunities for people of higher education, who will still feel compelled to move to the coasts to find work that fits their desired pay range and degree status. In this case, cutting government to shreds does not address the real problem.

At least it allows easier firing of completely useless employees. Not all of these Detroit employees are total losers, some of them can actually do their job right. Privatization would just make it easier to purge the system of those taking advantage of getting paid for not working.

[Imperator]

As far as Detroit and Michigan economy are concerned, I believe you're both correct.

Problem 1:

Old dogs can't learn new tricks. I've said it before, I'll say it again. We are NOT the Motor Capital of the world, no matter what anyone says. The fact that the people cling to this notion and the auto industry even as it abandons them is ridiculous. When people wake up and realize that they can no longer compete in the auto industry they will realize what a monumental waste of time the next 10 years have been. The solution is a new tech, new product, new industry, and new market. Just like 50 years ago, we need to corner a market. The fact that the people refuse to learn has led to a mass exodus of youth to other states, where they can actually find incentives to research new ideas. Granholm cutting funding to U of M is NOT helping any.....

Problem 2:

Politicians are idiots. Their continued support and allegiance to the Big Three is killing the state. Just like politicians, they are more concerned about winning, staying in office, and lookin good than actually doing work. For the past 30 years we've been slipping, and nothing has been done to prevent it. Similar to problem one, but with the added bonus that these people are not economists in any way, shape, or form. Lack of government incentives to find a new industry means it is excessively difficult for smart people to attempt to pull this state out of the gutters, thus they are almost forced to stick with the dying Michigan auto industry.

[JMHX]

Imperator -

No matter how impolitic it may be to say, I agree with you - despite the wounded egos and potentially significant lost jobs, it would be much safer and smarter for Michigan and the Federal Government to acknowledge that our time as a competitive automobile producer is coming to an end, and that, given the recent displays by Ford and GM, it is doubtful we will ever succeed in besting Honda and Toyota.

The problem seems to be that politicians pour more time and effort into their constituency, protecting and subsidizing, tax-cutting and tax-crediting automotive companies that are constantly cutting jobs and slimming production, instead of acknowledging this and spending that money to train auto workers in new fields. What is happening at Ford is the same as a cancer in the body: No matter how many tax rebates Michigan rolls out to Ford, no matter how many jobs are cut and plants are closed, that will not create a profitable company. It will only delay the slow decline and ultimate default of the company.

[Imperator]

Wanna know what the best part about it is? The solution has been staring us in the face for years now, and our wonderfully elected governor has been doing everything in her power to fuck it up.

http://www.umichtmi.com/jobPostings/viewjob.a sp?id=145

http://msu.edu/bioeconomy/

The ironic part about Flextronics is that the re-training costs for all the Ford, GM, and Chrystler employees would be next to nothing. Perhaps more ironic is that lack of research incentives in Michigan (cutting funding to the Universities) is why Flextronics are now in San Diego, instead of Flint......

[JMHX]

To go on a tangent, I have always taken with a grain of salt Michael Moore's protests about the decrepit situation Flint is in, as he is also one who protests the closing of Ford plants and the moving of Ford factories overseas, while completely ignoring the changing of industries that would bring Flint back from the sad position it is in.

[AdamRice]

I was pretty disappointed by how both Granholm and DeVos said very little about starting a new industry. I think Michigan should take a stab at the ethanol market, we've got plenty of farm land and it's an emerging industry. The shit basically hit the fan in Detroit when all the assembly line plants closed.
I remember Granholm making claims about how Michigan was going to lead the ethanol market, but my bottom dollar says she doesn't do a damn thing.

It's just the same old bs about how "we're going to make the car companies all better!"
It's the big three's fault for losing the market, they failed to come up with automobiles that combine interesting design with efficiency and affordable price.

Although Mopar isn't actually doing too bad right now, they actually make some pretty cool cars IMO. You have all the Jeeps and the Dodge Ram trucks.

Ford is making all their profit margin off the new Mustang and the F-150, which isn't enough to float their boat.

GM has been doing better then Ford, however them seem to have foolishly slowed down attempts at making more efficient cars in light of lower gas prices this year.

Basically Toyota is going to take over the market as the top supplier, and then there's all that talk about a possible Toyota/Ford merger which would be interesting.

[DJ-Jerakai]

This all depends on the structure of the population of the government.
If a huge government has one or two guys at the top *cough* China *splutter* then corruption and mis management becomes rampant, but a government based on the british monarchy system, even if its just a small one like say New Zealand, but its very top heavy for how many people there are, then the power is shared, corruption is avoided and decisions are well thought out.

Of course the actual size of a government is relative to that nations population. Bigger countires require bigger governments and smaller ones, don't so much need big governments.

[Demosthenez]

At 1/6/07 12:05 AM, JMHX wrote: Conservatives argue. . .

Cmon, you are going to pigenhole an entire ideology with the extreme of it? Not every conservative is a lasiez-faire libertarian. Not every liberal is for a socialist, statist, monstrosity of a government. It may help further your argument by defining such an incredibly broad term in such a way but it would be a farce to even try to make anyone believe that is what being "conservative" is.

The problems Conservatives rail against are not the fault of the government, but are basic human tendencies: Greed, ambition for superiority, ambition for success and as a result, money.

I find this satement highly ironic. If you can somehow explain to me why I should hand over my individual rights to people who legislate my life who have shown to regularly be among the most greedy, ambitious, cutthroat, richass people with inferiority complexes I will cease to be a small government conservative.

That is your largest mistake here. You are acting like the government is some beneficent moderator of our lives that is out to do the right thing in all circumstances. There is not a single example in history of this being true for any significant period of time. And it is no mistake to note that the biggest crimes against populaces have come when the power of a government was left absolutely unchecked. While yes, Julius Caeser may have been a wonderful leader, Nero was not. Caligula was not. I mean, for everything the plebians gave up, they maybe had a few good autocrats, at best, and periods of absolutely atrocious ones. And that is how I feel about government, a few good leaders among heaps of incompetents and I see no need to pave the way for more of them.

I refuse to empower the government and the same self interested, biased individuals you are railing against in big business with the ability to legislate my life. Absolutely refuse catagorically.

Without the regulatory enforcement of government, we would find that little has changed besides the ease with which men can dominate over other men.

You mean like how the federal government rules over everyone? What makes them the final arbiter of decisions? Because they make such good, unbiased, unselfish decisions?

What so many seem not to realize is that the limited control over unchecked success of corporations also serves as a limit on the suffering of those who would not be able to compete in a free and open market.

Lete even pretend for a moment this is true. So please explain to me why the people I am supposed to entrust to do this, the legislature, takes money in by the busload from big business and continues to do it with no end in sight. I am supposed to trust the people who owe their jobs to the same people they are supposed to legislate against to make the best decision possible for the American people.

No thanks.

At 1/6/07 12:23 AM, JMHX wrote: Yes, government could be made much smaller and simpler by removing all of its social programs and putting them in other hands. You can also make a clock much simpler by ripping out all of its gears, and build a house much quicker by skipping the foundation.

You equate a functioning house or clock with a government and its social programs? Cmon.

Not even an word of your argument has defended this point. You have defended large government by saying it is the bulwark against big business greed, not that social programs are essential to our countries survival. I would be interested to see your reasoning to how cutting a program like Social Security or Medicare would cause the total collapse of government you predict.

At 1/6/07 12:43 AM, JMHX wrote: By privatizing the program, you simply have the same program with a different title above it

OK, thats great. So we still have the problem that you admit government involvement is not helping or absolving at all but now with less taxes and less money being spent on worthless shit. Win-win.

Throwing tax money at shit just because you can is not a solution, it is a fools errand.

[JakeHero]

My solution: strike a balance between government interference and free-market. Easier said than done, I'll admit.

[JMHX]

At 1/6/07 02:46 AM, Demosthenez wrote:

At 1/6/07 12:05 AM, JMHX wrote:

Cmon, you are going to pigenhole an entire ideology with the extreme of it? Not every conservative is a lasiez-faire libertarian. Not every liberal is for a socialist, statist, monstrosity of a government.

Not every Republican is Conservative, not every Democrat is Liberal, but I made very clear that I was defining it as a Reagan Conservative, of which there are many high-ranking believers remaining in government. I am not pigeonholing the entire Conservative (from NeoCon to Libertarian) ideology by very clearly singling out Reagan Conservatives as the topic of discussion.

And it is no mistake to note that the biggest crimes against populaces have come when the power of a government was left absolutely unchecked. While yes, Julius Caeser may have been a wonderful leader, Nero was not. Caligula was not.

And equal tyrannies have been wrought by the masses, left to govern themselves after having governments neutered and dissolved. The French Revolution is the prime example of this, the promise of equality and an end to the class system of government, leading inexorably to the same system as was present under the government, except a tyranny of the mob replaced a tyranny of the throne.

You mean like how the federal government rules over everyone? What makes them the final arbiter of decisions? Because they make such good, unbiased, unselfish decisions?

The idea that men left to their own would come up with any different results shows a utopian view of humanity. Government is designed as a check - power for power, force for force.

What so many seem not to realize is that the limited control over unchecked success of corporations also serves as a limit on the suffering of those who would not be able to compete in a free and open market.

Let's even pretend for a moment this is true. So please explain to me why the people I am supposed to entrust to do this, the legislature, takes money in by the busload from big business and continues to do it with no end in sight. I am supposed to trust the people who owe their jobs to the same people they are supposed to legislate against to make the best decision possible for the American people.

Interest groups have been present since the creation, and will always attempt to have their influence in the government no matter what changes occur. The only thing that changes in the limiting of government to a powerless minor authority is that these forces will then be free to pursue their agendas without the burdens of regulation.

At 1/6/07 12:43 AM, JMHX wrote: By privatizing the program, you simply have the same program with a different title above it

OK, thats great. So we still have the problem that you admit government involvement is not helping or absolving at all but now with less taxes and less money being spent on worthless shit. Win-win.

Hardly, because while you have gotten rid of the public face of it, nothing has improved, and any and all oversight that government authority may have has been relinquished to a private company. The problem remains, causing issues, while small-government advocates delude themselves into believing the problem is solved.

[Camarohusky]

That's true. Though I must say that I am biased toward a larger government.

There are many instances where a larger government with more rules and regulations would help, but are undercut by the idea of small governmetn and it makes somethnig worse than either: A large governmetn with no power. For example take the Oregon school system of 2000-2003. I use this as an example because I lived it and I saw what was really going on and how the small government ideology created and tried to further the problem.

To first describe this problem, I must set up the situation. Oregon was during the years 2000 and 2001 about 71.5% dependant upon state income tax for its revenue. On top of that the property tax measures, namely Measure 5 , changed the way schools were funded, from 70% property taxes to about 70% income tax. The measure did have beenfits, it kick started the housing market. This tax measure was an effort to shrink the government and get it out of people's lives. "Supporters defend the measure as necessary to curb government spending excesses."

In 2000 when the economy was doing great, the schools were overflowing with money. The schools, naturally, decided to spend this money. The Hillsboro School District used this money for new science equipment, new computers, new teachers, the opening of a new high school and several new elementary schools and a fancy up-to-date administrative office. The teachers they hired were so good, all of the high schools in the district ranked a good or better and one ranked a phenomenal, compared to the other 6 west-side high schools where half were poor and none weere phenomenal.

Then came the recession. First Enron fell, then Worldcom and then the economy started to lag and eventually it all but stopped completely. Oregon being heavily supported by the technology sector was hit extremely hard. Unemployment skyrocketed and therefore state income tax dropped, heavily.

The schools immedeately were hit. The drop was sudden, and the budgets were drawn up way in advance, so the school experienced shortfalls as early as the spring of 2001. They cut teacher's salaries. increased the unpaid days off, and even tried to revamp the entire district quarter system to make the teachers work extra with the same pay. Some measures were successful, as the District made it through the 2001-2002 school year with only a few cuts and bruises. They hoped for the best, and all they got were more cuts. Come the 2002-2003 school year, all hell breaks loose. The school begins to cut real school days. First it was just 3 or 4 in the Autumn, then 5 or 6 more out of Spring, finally, facing an extreme crunch the school ended on May 23rd . This may not seem odd to you East of the Rockies people, but the school year was supposed to end on June 9th. The shortfall was also so bad, the city came extremely close to wasting millions of tax payers' dollars by not opening an expensive new high school because they didn't have the simple 2 million (in a district where the average family makes around $100,000 a year,) it takes to clean and prep the school.

During the early parts of 2003 the community began to become outraged and started blaming the school district for wasting its money. They thought the district was too wasteful and greedy, and it needed a good streamlining. These people completely ignored the fact that just 2 years earlier the schools were rolling in the money, and it was their ballot measure 13 years before that had put the schools in this position. The small government type used this as an example to explain why public schools are not only wasteful, but useless and pushed their voucher agenda.

This leads to my final point. The problem with the school system was created many years ago by an attempt to shrink the government part way. The reaction to the problem was to shrink the government even more as if the government had caused this problem. In fact, the real problem was that the people looknig for a smaller government, gutted to the government's income yet left all of the services standing. the government was put upon an untenable, yet at the time sufficient, ground. If the people had left the government's stabilty this problem would have not happened. sure a few less homes may have been sold, but now the state is in a worse problem. How do you sell homes to people with children when the school system is in shambles?

Income tax source
Property tax source

[JMHX]

I fail to see, in any sense, the delusion of proponents of small government, well-intentioned as they may be, to think that a nation run more by the will and decisions of the people would somehow be superior to a nation run by the only force large enough to check the abuses and exploitations of powerful people and groups of people. It goes back to the Jeffersonian "Power of the People," as if the power of the people is somehow incorruptible and above question, whereas the power of government is nothing but a despotism waiting to strip rights away.

We forget that a group of people operating independent of a government - France during the Revolution, Haiti during their government coups, Somalian citizens groups - have as fierce a power to limit rights and create tyranny as a government, and even moreso because these groups harbor no obligation to check their own actions. A stable and sufficiently large government, while it may limit the very peak of commerical or individual success, also serves to stabilize the treatment of the lowest, preventing atrocity in the way that weak governments and mob rule do not.

[Secretsauce]

At 1/6/07 12:23 AM, JMHX wrote: Yes, government could be made much smaller and simpler by removing all of its social programs and putting them in other hands. You can also make a clock much simpler by ripping out all of its gears, and build a house much quicker by skipping the foundation. These things work because of their complexity, not in spite of it, and although government does bring with it certain measured inefficiencies, the alternative - a nation ruled by unrestrained greed, jealousy, resentment, and the unreliable flowing of public passion - is certainly far more unstable and dangerous, a threat to itself and its neighbors.

I can definitely see where cutting down a Federal program and distributing it in the private sector could have the potential to cause problems; however, you fail to even acknowledge the possiblity for success with such an action. Imagine stripping the gears out of a clock, inserting a circuit board and battery, and slapping an LCD screen on it. Voilà, you have a digital clock with an up-to-date, unelaborate system that gets the job done better than it did before.

[JMHX]

I'm going to need a little bit to consider your point, you've given me something to chew on that is rare in these drawn-out discussions. By the way, check your PMs.

[Camarohusky]

At 1/6/07 04:29 AM, Secretsauce wrote: I can definitely see where cutting down a Federal program and distributing it in the private sector could have the potential to cause problems; however, you fail to even acknowledge the possiblity for success with such an action. Imagine stripping the gears out of a clock, inserting a circuit board and battery, and slapping an LCD screen on it. Voilà, you have a digital clock with an up-to-date, unelaborate system that gets the job done better than it did before.

But look at how many parts that clock now has. You just removed 20 (if you count every cog and axle or a few extra bits) or so cumbersome old parts with 100 (if you count every cicuit on the board, and the cords and the battery and the LCD parts and components) or so extremely efficient new ones. On top of that, the amount of energy a battery clock takes versus an old crank clock is quite enormous.

You just made our government bigger and more complicated, yet more fficient and much better.

[Secretsauce]

At 1/6/07 04:33 AM, Camarohusky wrote: But look at how many parts that clock now has. You just removed 20 (if you count every cog and axle or a few extra bits) or so cumbersome old parts with 100 (if you count every cicuit on the board, and the cords and the battery and the LCD parts and components) or so extremely efficient new ones. On top of that, the amount of energy a battery clock takes versus an old crank clock is quite enormous.

You just made our government bigger and more complicated, yet more fficient and much better.

Bad analogy on my part then (I was referring to the circuit as one part, work with me here). My point is that while you may cause issues by changing public to private (and cleaning up the program), who's to say it couldn't work?

[JMHX]

Your flaw is the belief that, unregulated, a person will work for the public good over personal gain.

[Camarohusky]

At 1/6/07 04:51 AM, Secretsauce wrote: Bad analogy on my part then (I was referring to the circuit as one part, work with me here). My point is that while you may cause issues by changing public to private (and cleaning up the program), who's to say it couldn't work?

I do not doubt that it can work. I just agree with JMHX here.

Privatization presents quite a few benefits that the current system does not have. It creates more accountability (on a dasy to day level within the organization), it in many cases increases efficiency and can give much much heigher quality product. Yet, that is ONLY when it is used properly, which it rarely ever is, at least in our society. The American individualist society leads to that being abused for one's personal gains. Even a very collective society as Japan is not immune from that kind of greed and abuse. So we in give up those efficiencies in order to make sure we end up getting the product with much less negative byproduct.

Now when you look at both systems, you have corruption. On the private side you have Arthur Anderson and Enron. On the public side you have Jack Abramoff and Pork-barreling. Let's compare these two.

The Public corruption with all of its regulations and roadblocks led to money being diverted from project to other projects, and in many cases bribes and other shady deals. The worst consequences were the prosecution of those involved and some misappropriated wasted funds.

The Private corruption with the few roadblocks it had at the time, (Sarbanes-Oxley may suck, but it's better than dealing with that shit again,) caused a nasty set of bad things to happen. First, the State of California was screwed by poor energy policy in Enron, possibly orchestrated, but I won't go that far. After that, the company was found out for all the waste they were causing that did not go to other people, it went straight into the top executives pockets. This caused and enormous company to crash right when the economy was in a rapid skid causing it to fall much further. granted, Enron made lots of people extremely rich and did some pretty good things in its time, but without the rules it abused its power and ended up costing the American peopel as a whole a hell of a lot of money. Now, because of that, the accounting world has to bend over ass-backward everytime they work with a client to make sure they aren't doing anything unethical. It really annoys the accountants, but hey, it's better than getting screwed hardcore, right?

It's a shitty thing to say, but a few bad apples do spoil the bunch when it comes to privatization and small government.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 1/6/07 04:52 AM, JMHX wrote: Your flaw is the belief that, unregulated, a person will work for the public good over personal gain.

And your flaw is that you seem to think that an ever more powerfull central government will just stop trying to gain more power.

To give over ready amounts of power and controll to the central government can come at a cost to our liberties and economic freedoms.

As we have seem before with countless political parties and presidents, the Executive and Legalslative branch has increasingly come to gain more power at the cost of the States, while this may have given us some benifits such as a minium wage, but at the increasingly restriction on personal choice on life and economic restrictions that we have seen coming from the oh so smart Washington.

Our lives and choices shouldn't be trusted with some distant politician in Washington that may not even have a connection to our own state, rather we should seek more power and strength back to the State legislatures and Governors.

[Camarohusky]

At 1/6/07 09:42 AM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: Our lives and choices shouldn't be trusted with some distant politician in Washington that may not even have a connection to our own state, rather we should seek more power and strength back to the State legislatures and Governors.

I don't think he's neccesarily arguing state V. Federal. It seems to me more like he's arguing public V. private.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 1/6/07 09:48 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 1/6/07 09:42 AM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

I don't think he's neccesarily arguing state V. Federal. It seems to me more like he's arguing public V. private.

He reffered to a strong central government, so it set me off.

But mainly, what I wish to know is how you equate greatness, morality and a check for human greed and corruption with government, when it's people that run this government.

As we have some before in many many examples(Tea Pot Dome Scandal as one) the central government is not exempt from corruption.

But we at least we know that the private sector has to answer to someone, be it a shareholder or thier workers, and sadly the govenment doesn't when they can confuse, distort or just hide the facts of anything.

While we know the business sector is just as bad at times, to put the government on the pedistle as a check to human corruption is foolishness.

[JMHX]

At 1/6/07 09:42 AM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 1/6/07 04:52 AM, JMHX wrote:

To give over ready amounts of power and controll to the central government can come at a cost to our liberties and economic freedoms.

If there was little more than a weak and neutered central government, the power gained by the natural Aristocracy of America would move to do the same thing in order to consolidate and solidify their standing and influence. As I said, a tyranny is just as capable when it is led by a group of people held victim to public opinion as it is from any throne or Congress.

[SkunkyFluffy]

At 1/6/07 02:31 PM, JMHX wrote: If there was little more than a weak and neutered central government, the power gained by the natural Aristocracy of America would move to do the same thing in order to consolidate and solidify their standing and influence. As I said, a tyranny is just as capable when it is led by a group of people held victim to public opinion as it is from any throne or Congress.

Agreed - how quickly we forget the lesson of the weak and neutered (stealing your nicely-coined phrase) government we had under the Articles of Confederation, under which the individual states each had more power than the central federal government. There was nothing to compel the states to cooperate, and they soon began treating each other as rivals.

[Draconias]

One major flaw I am seeing over and over again is the assumption that big government equates to effective regualtion. This is completely and entirely untrue.

In no way does a large, bloated government ensure better regualtion or enforcement. In fact, it is only more likely to impede the investigation and prosecution of criminals and weakened the ability of the government to react coherently to a problem.

In truth, the size of a government has very little effect on the ability of that government to regulate, with the exception of available manpower in extreme cases. A small government is superior for the things government actually effects, such as the efficient spending of money, successful research, and civilian prosperity. Regulation has nothing to do with it.