I thought I'd post this here, based on where a thread about the Argentine economy was going between Bradley and Nico. I started to post in there, but managed to restrain myself 
In my opinion, putting the power in the hands of the government to forcibly remove money I've made from my own hard work, in order to provide many (but possibly not all) of the services and support mechanisms required in order to redistribute that money to things I may not agree with is not only thievery via tyranny of the masses lead by the powerful, but also counter-productive and serves only to drain resources that could be used to lift everyone out of poverty.
I've seen medical costs in my lifetime get higher and higher as the government sticks its fingers in the system more and more, and everyone thinks more legislation and regulation is needed. I've seen stupidity related to scientific research where billions of dollars are attributed to TOKAMAK fusion research for many decades because the government listens to "experts" whose very budgets and careers depend on getting funding from the government, whether it works or not - and it doesn't. Never will.
I've seen many things, repeatedly, and I see the definition of insanity emerging as a pattern: to keep trying the same thing over and over again yet expecting different results is what I can agree on as a way to define insanity.
Any current-day government is by self-definition less efficient than business because they are not restricted by anything except public opinion, which is easy to sway, and the reality that eventually catches up to greed and excess. Politics attract mostly people who are interested in money and/or power. I don't mean necessarily the people who run for office, although there are plenty in that crowd. But even more so the sycophants and "power brokers" that ply people in political office with advice (how many politicians really understand the large amounts of varying topics they are supposed to legislate?), money (everyone has a price, it's said. No one's hit mine yet, but who knows how much that would be until you experience it?) and perks (some people just like to be treated well, like a king or at least a VIP, when they can't afford trips to exotic places, for example) and damned near anything imaginable to get their way. It doesn't matter whether the cause is "good" or "bad" - that has little real definition beyond what society wants to give it, and there are nearly as many opinions on what is good and bad as there are people.
Government does not create jobs, nor should it. Some say that it does, by fiddling with the economy as if passing a magic wand over a bunch of beans and hoping they grow to reach the heavens. All that really does is force an unnatural distortion of market forces almost always leading to booms/bubbles and crashes/recessions, because the government's efforts aren't directed by necessity of market forces, but rather by the whim of whoever in power has been influenced to redirect the flow of stolen money into their little fiefdom.
The government should be in charge of enforcing laws that every one agrees to (internally, at the very least - national defense is a completely different topic, but really pretty damned important, particularly for the US who spends at least as much as all other nations on Earth combined on "national defense"). The laws should be as minimal and easy to understand as possible. The laws should be applied to each and every individual in an equal manner.
I'm more and more a Libertarian every day. I don't know how far I go toward the most extreme of those philosophies, but I am beginning to suspect that my hesitation may be the result of continuing ignorance and a remnant of all the crap I have been fed mentally by the memes that are loose in the world, and the United States. It is a very monumental task to attempt to grasp the truth, and very illusive in its nature, because the truth about humans is never solid; it certainly does not follow a brightly-lit path.
Many of the the founding fathers of the US were very worried about a strong federal government for at least some of the reasons I've stated above. They intended a looser federal organization and stronger states where people could more easily determine their own destiny with a lesser chance of tyranny by the masses, which they knew was a very real possibility in a self-governed country. It was one of the reasons they created a republic with checks and balances instead of a direct democracy.
I know it's controversial to say, but I believe the US Civil War was the beginning of the end for the United States. I am extremely far removed from racism except for whatever remnants exist that may plague my subconscious, which I try with all my being to avoid allowing to be manifested by consciously acknowledging the possibility and doing my best to step on it if it comes up unexpectedly.
I have seen another thread where it was remarked, I believe it was Bradley, that it was intolerable to permit someone to live another minute in slavery.
While I completely agree with the sentiment, I can't agree with the reality. If that were the case, we would be at war all of the time. Why are we not invading every tyrannic country in the world to put a stop immediately to the pain and suffering that exists all over? As many of us in this forum have seen, I too have seen some pretty horrific crap around the world, and particularly here in South America where I have spent the most time in my life outside of the US. I can guarantee you I have seen slavery of one sort or another all over.
The way the Civil War ended slavery doesn't seem, to me, to have been very successful. When one talks about the suffering of the slaves, what about the suffering of all the freed black people following the war, for at least a good hundred years or more? The policies which grew out of the government's response to their plight being, in my opinion, completely failed. The Civil War continued to cause division and hatred long after the actual fighting war ended and a large percentage of black citizens remain poor and dependent on the government to this day. Piggy backing on a lot of those programs are more of other races and cultural segments of the country sucking off the government teat.
Could things have been different if the government had not forced the issue? We'll never know, I don't think, unless we can somehow reach into a parallel universe where things played out differently and see what the result was. But I believe that things would indeed have been different, on two different fronts. First, the civil War put to bed any thought of secession of the states from the federal government, which lead to a strong federal government (which gets stronger all the time) and tyranny of the masses (which gets more oppressive). Second, I believe if the South had been allowed to fail, slavery would have first become unfashionable, and then illegal as people realized the reality. The gradual integration of African slaves and their descendants into society, I think, would have been much more peaceful instead of violent, bringing down the wrath of people on them as did actually happen. I can't prove that, and certainly I could be wrong.
But government certainly didn't do it right, as we can see.
The very act of the government forcibly removing money from its citizenry as well as allowing the government the ability to borrow money, puts a large impetus on power hungry entities to attempt to corrupt the system to their own benefit, not the citizenry's, and leads directly to tyranny. Therefore, government should be as small as possible to restrict as much as possible the affect of an inherently flawed, but necessary at some level, human system.
In my opinion, putting the power in the hands of the government to forcibly remove money I've made from my own hard work, in order to provide many (but possibly not all) of the services and support mechanisms required in order to redistribute that money to things I may not agree with is not only thievery via tyranny of the masses lead by the powerful, but also counter-productive and serves only to drain resources that could be used to lift everyone out of poverty.
I've seen medical costs in my lifetime get higher and higher as the government sticks its fingers in the system more and more, and everyone thinks more legislation and regulation is needed. I've seen stupidity related to scientific research where billions of dollars are attributed to TOKAMAK fusion research for many decades because the government listens to "experts" whose very budgets and careers depend on getting funding from the government, whether it works or not - and it doesn't. Never will.
I've seen many things, repeatedly, and I see the definition of insanity emerging as a pattern: to keep trying the same thing over and over again yet expecting different results is what I can agree on as a way to define insanity.
Any current-day government is by self-definition less efficient than business because they are not restricted by anything except public opinion, which is easy to sway, and the reality that eventually catches up to greed and excess. Politics attract mostly people who are interested in money and/or power. I don't mean necessarily the people who run for office, although there are plenty in that crowd. But even more so the sycophants and "power brokers" that ply people in political office with advice (how many politicians really understand the large amounts of varying topics they are supposed to legislate?), money (everyone has a price, it's said. No one's hit mine yet, but who knows how much that would be until you experience it?) and perks (some people just like to be treated well, like a king or at least a VIP, when they can't afford trips to exotic places, for example) and damned near anything imaginable to get their way. It doesn't matter whether the cause is "good" or "bad" - that has little real definition beyond what society wants to give it, and there are nearly as many opinions on what is good and bad as there are people.
Government does not create jobs, nor should it. Some say that it does, by fiddling with the economy as if passing a magic wand over a bunch of beans and hoping they grow to reach the heavens. All that really does is force an unnatural distortion of market forces almost always leading to booms/bubbles and crashes/recessions, because the government's efforts aren't directed by necessity of market forces, but rather by the whim of whoever in power has been influenced to redirect the flow of stolen money into their little fiefdom.
The government should be in charge of enforcing laws that every one agrees to (internally, at the very least - national defense is a completely different topic, but really pretty damned important, particularly for the US who spends at least as much as all other nations on Earth combined on "national defense"). The laws should be as minimal and easy to understand as possible. The laws should be applied to each and every individual in an equal manner.
I'm more and more a Libertarian every day. I don't know how far I go toward the most extreme of those philosophies, but I am beginning to suspect that my hesitation may be the result of continuing ignorance and a remnant of all the crap I have been fed mentally by the memes that are loose in the world, and the United States. It is a very monumental task to attempt to grasp the truth, and very illusive in its nature, because the truth about humans is never solid; it certainly does not follow a brightly-lit path.
Many of the the founding fathers of the US were very worried about a strong federal government for at least some of the reasons I've stated above. They intended a looser federal organization and stronger states where people could more easily determine their own destiny with a lesser chance of tyranny by the masses, which they knew was a very real possibility in a self-governed country. It was one of the reasons they created a republic with checks and balances instead of a direct democracy.
I know it's controversial to say, but I believe the US Civil War was the beginning of the end for the United States. I am extremely far removed from racism except for whatever remnants exist that may plague my subconscious, which I try with all my being to avoid allowing to be manifested by consciously acknowledging the possibility and doing my best to step on it if it comes up unexpectedly.
I have seen another thread where it was remarked, I believe it was Bradley, that it was intolerable to permit someone to live another minute in slavery.
While I completely agree with the sentiment, I can't agree with the reality. If that were the case, we would be at war all of the time. Why are we not invading every tyrannic country in the world to put a stop immediately to the pain and suffering that exists all over? As many of us in this forum have seen, I too have seen some pretty horrific crap around the world, and particularly here in South America where I have spent the most time in my life outside of the US. I can guarantee you I have seen slavery of one sort or another all over.
The way the Civil War ended slavery doesn't seem, to me, to have been very successful. When one talks about the suffering of the slaves, what about the suffering of all the freed black people following the war, for at least a good hundred years or more? The policies which grew out of the government's response to their plight being, in my opinion, completely failed. The Civil War continued to cause division and hatred long after the actual fighting war ended and a large percentage of black citizens remain poor and dependent on the government to this day. Piggy backing on a lot of those programs are more of other races and cultural segments of the country sucking off the government teat.
Could things have been different if the government had not forced the issue? We'll never know, I don't think, unless we can somehow reach into a parallel universe where things played out differently and see what the result was. But I believe that things would indeed have been different, on two different fronts. First, the civil War put to bed any thought of secession of the states from the federal government, which lead to a strong federal government (which gets stronger all the time) and tyranny of the masses (which gets more oppressive). Second, I believe if the South had been allowed to fail, slavery would have first become unfashionable, and then illegal as people realized the reality. The gradual integration of African slaves and their descendants into society, I think, would have been much more peaceful instead of violent, bringing down the wrath of people on them as did actually happen. I can't prove that, and certainly I could be wrong.
But government certainly didn't do it right, as we can see.
The very act of the government forcibly removing money from its citizenry as well as allowing the government the ability to borrow money, puts a large impetus on power hungry entities to attempt to corrupt the system to their own benefit, not the citizenry's, and leads directly to tyranny. Therefore, government should be as small as possible to restrict as much as possible the affect of an inherently flawed, but necessary at some level, human system.
