This is pretty much opposite of your government bad arg. Eisenhower was warning about the influence of the private sector, not the government, hence military "industrial complex." He was saying you can't trust the corporations to make the right decisions about national policy. And not sure how you have the contractor/politician relationship backward. If anything, it is the influence (money) of the private sector that is a corrupting factor on the politician, not the other way around. I gave specific examples that show you are incorrect (EPA, OSHA, Social Security Administration, CDC). You can repeat your original assertion, but that doesn't make it so.
I don't think much of a spouse that cheats or someone that knowingly has a relationship with someone married. Not that it matters to my point above.
Wonder why there is not one half decent country that is run by the libertarians? These people should go to Somalia and help make that country the libertarian heaven.:grin:
Take away their power and you take away the desire/money to influence it. Big government = big power = big corruption (and of course the solution is always more government power to stop the corrupting of the powerful). Important to distinguish between government activity that protects liberty vs. government activity that restricts it. Most of the activities you listed have negative consequences as well. National Parks prevent states from deciding the best use of their own land. OSHA requirements make it more expensive to hire an employee. Environmental regulations increase operating costs. I could put my payroll tax in a savings account and get a better guaranteed return than SS. There are no solutions in life, only tradeoffs.
Uh, except then you're left with the corrupting entities holding all the power, lol. That doesn't make any sense. The reason we have government (btw your argument really is that government is bad, not just "big" government) is that anarchy (ie the state of nature) ain't a pretty picture. Even 19th century America is not a society we'd want to return to, with few regulations on corporations. Those trade offs aren't equal. It is more desirable (ie better) to have those things listed than not. If you want to argue otherwise, history isn't on your side. Each were enacted because the private sector and/or local government were causing the problems. While you may think you (specifically) can do better, history shows that the whole is better off with these policies, and as a citizen it isn't JUST about you. That's the implicit trade off you agree to when you choose to be part of the greater system. And I couldn't disagree more with your idea that there are only trade offs, as if all things are relative or equal. We restrict the freedom of pedophiles to rape children. Is that a trade off, sure. It is better to have that restriction? Is the welfare of the child more important than the pedophiles freedom to rape? Absolutely.
What do you mean by power? A corporation can't make me do anything (unlike a government). Thanks for telling me what my argument is. Government that protects individual liberty is good. I don't think I can do better. Which is why I don't presume to decide for others how to manage those tradeoffs. I choose to be part of a social contract that protects the individual liberty of its members, rather than telling me how to live my life. "Greater system", a disturbing word choice
So, in your mind, less government = less corruption that is influenced by corporations? If that were the case, these corporations wouldn't be spending millions of dollars trying to get politicians who run on platforms of "less government" elected.
Big Corporations love Big Government, it's where they get all the bailouts/subsidies/guaranteed loans, not to mention regulations (that they typically help write) that smaller competitors have trouble complying with. If the government were powerless to do these things, corporations wouldn't be spending money trying to influence that power.
I sincerely doubt that we can have a real discussion about government and inefficiency. , The conservative anti-government bumper sticker thing is too strong. You are scared to death and Ronald Reagan who stated "Ilove my country; it is my government who scares me" and Fox News and the 1% who hate paying taxes have drummed your fear into your head. You constantly repeat it like it it is totally proven for all government is inefficient at all times. This suggests an ideological investment relatively immune to facts. However. Social security is run efficiently. Its administrative overhead is lower than insurance companies paying out similar type benefitis. It has done a good job protecting tens of millions from horrible poverty in their old age., which is why it is so popular. Medicare pays out enormous bills with an adminstrative overhead much lower than private insurance company bureaucracies. (I suppose you think huge buildings full of health insurance billing clerks can't be a bureaucracy since it is not government). The low overhead clerks at Mediciare do pay ridiculously high bills generated by a private heath care system whose costs that dwarf any government run system in nations similar to us.
they can make you accept the fact that they launder drug money, manipulate intrest rates for profit, pollute your air and water--- and so much more!
No you are not in the Eishehower camp. Ike believed in Keynesian economics and believed in government and built the Interstate Highway System which would not be possible in your "government scares me to death" Milton Friedmanism.
You've got the Fox-libertarian examples, I'll hand it to you. Oh BTW no private company organized for profit is making a bundle off of passenger traffic and delivering mail to every rural household on a daily basis. Please explain why, though I am sure you've never gotten past the assumption that these examples are self proving as you have been told.
Good post. I repeated the essence of it below before reading the whole thread. Now if you would just get off the war against Muslims for imaginary wmd's, democracy and feminism themes.
So... Why does poverty get handed down from generation to generation? If we understand that, maybe we can provide a real solution. In 1991, 8.3% of children in two-parent families were likely to live in poverty; 19.6% of children lived with father in single parent family; and 47.1% in single parent family headed by mother. I would guess that kids of single parents would tend to grow up and be single parents themselves.
they call it a cycle for a reason. But you can't force solutions on people. What we can do is create opportunities to help people break that cycle. Right now those opportunities are severely lacking.
Yeah, it would have been Norman Rockwell's America back in the day if it had cost $100 in 1940 to deliver a letter to backwoods Appalachia. Let them go without mail or a newspaper. Just like letting those go without healthcare who don't have money. Thanks for helping me make it more concrete how simply stupid the libertarian model of only things that have market prices matter for a good society. Oops society is an abstraction only the individual id rules.
