Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-20
Jump to topic:

why small government is not more?

suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2014 1:37:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
We know that the communism isn't work - and potentially evil. We know that the libertarian economic do work, every few time it has been employed.

Why hasn't more nations today try its more? Almost every nations, even the smaller one are socialist to some degree - even in a place like Singapore, why so? Isn't small government already prove itself to be potentially effective model?
ChosenWolff
Posts: 3,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2014 1:42:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/19/2014 1:37:10 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
We know that the communism isn't work
Good thing there's no communist governments or groups in power.
- and potentially evil.
That's silly. No ideology is evil.
We know that the libertarian economic do work,
Do we? Look how well says worked in the 20's.
every few time it has been employed.
No, this is just false. Neoliberal and Neoconservative economics are incredibly broken.

Why hasn't more nations today try its more?
Because it is the crummiest form of economics there is. Australia certainly isn't giving the Chicago school any credibility.
Almost every nations, even the smaller one are socialist to some degree
Any government that has a ruler elected from the people, and the capabilities to intervene in the economy is socialist. Socialism means people institutionalism within the private sector. The word was invented by the French.
- even in a place like Singapore, why so?
Because it's common sense to allow the government capabilities in the private sector. The government is another word for the people.
Isn't small government already prove itself to be potentially effective model?
Hasn't, and no, it hasn't, ;p;
How about NO elections?

#onlyonedeb8
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2014 2:38:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/19/2014 1:42:19 AM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 7/19/2014 1:37:10 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
We know that the communism isn't work
Good thing there's no communist governments or groups in power.
Perhaps, if you don't count the Soviet and North Korea as a form of communism. But that's also mean that it is just not feasible enough for not a single government in the world are willing to try it.
- and potentially evil.
That's silly. No ideology is evil.
Ideology can be evil just like any for of thought, our definition of evil may be differ but that doesn't mean it isn't existed. In my version, robbing people of their property, electricity, and condemn them to starvation and death is evil. And that's what the Soviet, the PRC, and the NK and been practising in this last centuries.

We know that the libertarian economic do work,
Do we? Look how well says worked in the 20's.
every few time it has been employed.
No, this is just false. Neoliberal and Neoconservative economics are incredibly broken.

It works fine in Hong Kong, it helps UK get up on their feet during their economic recession. There hasn't been more case about it being used in modern context but that's interesting enough for me to just think about it.

Why hasn't more nations today try its more?
Because it is the crummiest form of economics there is. Australia certainly isn't giving the Chicago school any credibility.
Don't know enough to day anything substantial about it but their economy look pretty "Mixed" to me, too mush of a social benefit and tax to be considered libertarian.

Almost every nations, even the smaller one are socialist to some degree
Any government that has a ruler elected from the people, and the capabilities to intervene in the economy is socialist. Socialism means people institutionalism within the private sector. The word was invented by the French.

- even in a place like Singapore, why so?
Because it's common sense to allow the government capabilities in the private sector. The government is another word for the people.

It's quite unusual for someone to enter my house and eat my cereal... ...without my permission.

Isn't small government already prove itself to be potentially effective model?
Hasn't, and no, it hasn't, ;p;

Look, if you want to discuss libertarian vs socialism, fine but do make sure to add something more substantive (some case where it's actually works).

otherwise we can just agree to disagree and call it a day.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2014 5:54:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/19/2014 1:37:10 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
We know that the communism isn't work - and potentially evil. We know that the libertarian economic do work, every few time it has been employed.

Why hasn't more nations today try its more? Almost every nations, even the smaller one are socialist to some degree - even in a place like Singapore, why so? Isn't small government already prove itself to be potentially effective model?

All governments are potentially evil, not just communist governments.

All "communism" is in reality is just a police state. Police states are instituted when there is a pronounced lack of security within a polity.

When people have no reason to be afraid, then the police state subsides. Is there such a thing as reasonable fear? Of course there is, that's what's been occurring in America since 9/11 that has been concomitant with our own ceding of rights and the growing influence of security matters over our daily lives.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
storytimewithjesus
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2014 10:31:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Whether or not an ideology can be evil depends on how you define evil. Communist nations have a much worse record on human rights abuses than capitalist nations, a much worse record on the environment, and a worse record on providing for their own people. China has only begun growing economically since they became more market based, but the fact that the government still owns everything means there's no personal incentive to protect property, which results in a lot more environmental damage. If you think anything that produces massive environmental damage and substantial human rights abuses without providing well for its own people is evil, then an ideology can be evil.

There is an optimal amount of government, and it is limited, but it isn't nonexistant either. However, the more things any individual branch of government does, the less effectively the people are able to control any specific government policy. For example, if you want to affect education policy, voting for your school board directly affects the policies of education at your local schools, but education policy is also affected by your state board of education and federal bureau of investigation, both of which you can only affect through voting for your state legislature, governor, congresspeople, and president, all of whom also make decisions on dozens of other important issues. When the people deciding education policy are also being elected based on their opinions on fiscal policy, social programs, gay rights, and abortion, often we end up having our major economic policy decisions getting made by people picked based on whether or not gay people make them feel uncomfortable. Limiting each branch of government to a smaller set of issues makes it easier for voters to communicate their specific policy choices to their government.

Markets are very diverse and can adapt very quickly. New companies are formed and old ones go out of business every day. Those that provide things their customers want and need efficiently enough to be worth the cost survive and those that fail to generally won't, and governments are as likely to prevent a company that should go out of business from failing through subsidies and using regulations to prevent new competition from entering the market as they are to correct for abusive, harmful, or wasteful companies that have found a way to profit in the market. Legislatures change slowly, with opportunities to replace people coming up only once every 2-6 years. Programs that outlive their usefulness or prove to be detrimental to the nation's overall wellbeing aren't fixed or eliminated in a timely manner, because politicians believe creating jobs in their home district is more important than increasing prosperity sustainably.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2014 8:03:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/19/2014 5:54:49 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/19/2014 1:37:10 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
We know that the communism isn't work - and potentially evil. We know that the libertarian economic do work, every few time it has been employed.

Why hasn't more nations today try its more? Almost every nations, even the smaller one are socialist to some degree - even in a place like Singapore, why so? Isn't small government already prove itself to be potentially effective model?

All governments are potentially evil, not just communist governments.

All "communism" is in reality is just a police state. Police states are instituted when there is a pronounced lack of security within a polity.

True but that doesn't made all police states a communist. Command economy is just effective to provide enough for the people, that's, to me, is what separated a good
undemocratic state from a bad one. Singapore is a police state from her very foundation, but she is a good one because she brought prosperity instead of starvation to her public. North Korea on the other hand is bad, and not because they don't have an election.

When people have no reason to be afraid, then the police state subsides. Is there such a thing as reasonable fear? Of course there is, that's what's been occurring in America since 9/11 that has been concomitant with our own ceding of rights and the growing influence of security matters over our daily lives.

More interested in it economic prospect rather than the political one but that's interesting.
slo1
Posts: 4,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2014 11:55:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/19/2014 1:37:10 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
We know that the communism isn't work - and potentially evil. We know that the libertarian economic do work, every few time it has been employed.

Why hasn't more nations today try its more? Almost every nations, even the smaller one are socialist to some degree - even in a place like Singapore, why so? Isn't small government already prove itself to be potentially effective model?

Because libertarian economics have never been implemented and never will be. Just because Singapore rates high on economic freedom, they have plenty of policy which is as anti-libertarian as any.

Central Provident Fund - Administered by the state.

- Employees are required to put 20% of salary in this retirement and medical savings fund. Employers contribute 16%.

Maybe libertarians need to begin asking why the most economic free societies have compulsory savings for its citizens and stop chasing rainbows and unicorns.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2014 2:27:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/20/2014 8:03:18 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 7/19/2014 5:54:49 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/19/2014 1:37:10 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
We know that the communism isn't work - and potentially evil. We know that the libertarian economic do work, every few time it has been employed.

Why hasn't more nations today try its more? Almost every nations, even the smaller one are socialist to some degree - even in a place like Singapore, why so? Isn't small government already prove itself to be potentially effective model?

All governments are potentially evil, not just communist governments.

All "communism" is in reality is just a police state. Police states are instituted when there is a pronounced lack of security within a polity.

True but that doesn't made all police states a communist. Command economy is just effective to provide enough for the people, that's, to me, is what separated a good
undemocratic state from a bad one. Singapore is a police state from her very foundation, but she is a good one because she brought prosperity instead of starvation to her public. North Korea on the other hand is bad, and not because they don't have an election.

I think all you're citing here is simply "market access", and whether or not it's available or denied to various nations. The Tiger economies all have prodigious market access, and so they can trade their way to success. China is a communist nation with market access, so it is able to do the same. For China, "comnmunism" equates to a monolithic, single-party entity that attempts to institute a command economy over its polity, yet such an overbearing institution does not affect its economic growth - compared to India, it's seen as a facilitator of growth. The model is not unique, the various Tiger economies did exactly the same, i.e. acquire "market access" while under a totalitarian state/outright martial law.

Various Middle Eastern nations are denied market access (Iraq, Iran), whereas those that have them (Kuwait, UAE) are quite successful.

Given that most of what constitutes the "market" is currently in the West, it's really up to the West to pick the winners and losers in regards to market access. Any economic analysis that does not take such politics into account is not productive.

When people have no reason to be afraid, then the police state subsides. Is there such a thing as reasonable fear? Of course there is, that's what's been occurring in America since 9/11 that has been concomitant with our own ceding of rights and the growing influence of security matters over our daily lives.

More interested in it economic prospect rather than the political one but that's interesting.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Mercury3
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2014 6:21:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Almost every nations, even the smaller one are socialist to some degree - even in a place like Singapore, why so? Isn't small government already prove itself to be potentially effective model?

Small government is incompatible with any known political system. In democracy, for example, politicians need to bribe voters to stay in power. Since they constantly try to outbid their competitors, the size of the government tends to increase over time.
storytimewithjesus
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2014 6:33:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/20/2014 11:55:05 AM, slo1 wrote:
Because libertarian economics have never been implemented and never will be. Just because Singapore rates high on economic freedom, they have plenty of policy which is as anti-libertarian as any.

You can say the same about pure Marxist communism. However, relatively more free markets have tended to provide greater resource availability for more people and spread technological advancements faster than relatively centrally planned economies.
storytimewithjesus
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2014 6:38:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/20/2014 6:21:27 PM, Mercury3 wrote:
Small government is incompatible with any known political system. In democracy, for example, politicians need to bribe voters to stay in power. Since they constantly try to outbid their competitors, the size of the government tends to increase over time.

Checks and balances can severely slow the rate of government expansion. However, I will agree that a government is only as good as the people running it, and in a democracy that means it's only as good as its people are capable of making it. Which is one of the reasons government is far from perfect.
slo1
Posts: 4,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2014 8:45:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/20/2014 6:33:14 PM, storytimewithjesus wrote:
At 7/20/2014 11:55:05 AM, slo1 wrote:
Because libertarian economics have never been implemented and never will be. Just because Singapore rates high on economic freedom, they have plenty of policy which is as anti-libertarian as any.

You can say the same about pure Marxist communism. However, relatively more free markets have tended to provide greater resource availability for more people and spread technological advancements faster than relatively centrally planned economies.

Yes, "relatively" is the key word there, not some libertarian utopia.
storytimewithjesus
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2014 11:07:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/20/2014 8:45:53 PM, slo1 wrote:
Yes, "relatively" is the key word there, not some libertarian utopia.

No system will ever perfectly fit any ideal in practice. However, if the countries that come relatively closer to one ideal are better at creating prosperity and contributes more to humanity's ability to survive, it seems reasonable to experiment more in the direction of the ideal that satisfies humanity's needs better.

Besides, most libertarians don't want a society with no government at all, just governments that stay within strict limits. Those limits can include things like penalizing those who harm or defraud others and making sure that companies properly inform people of what they're selling. What we generally object to are things like policing victimless activities, trying to impose our way of life on the rest of the world, and picking winners and losers through subsidies and handouts.
slo1
Posts: 4,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2014 7:00:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/20/2014 11:07:27 PM, storytimewithjesus wrote:
At 7/20/2014 8:45:53 PM, slo1 wrote:
Yes, "relatively" is the key word there, not some libertarian utopia.

No system will ever perfectly fit any ideal in practice. However, if the countries that come relatively closer to one ideal are better at creating prosperity and contributes more to humanity's ability to survive, it seems reasonable to experiment more in the direction of the ideal that satisfies humanity's needs better.

Besides, most libertarians don't want a society with no government at all, just governments that stay within strict limits. Those limits can include things like penalizing those who harm or defraud others and making sure that companies properly inform people of what they're selling. What we generally object to are things like policing victimless activities, trying to impose our way of life on the rest of the world, and picking winners and losers through subsidies and handouts.

The way you position libertarian moves it closer to center from the fringe, but the simple fact is that most libertarians would abhor gov policy which forces people to kick in 20% of their salary into a gov run program that pays for retirement and retirement medical.

Not only that, how can I trust a group that constantly uses countries such as Singapore as the gold standard when they can't give an open and honest assessment of factors which may contribute to Singapore's success, such as compulsory saving for retirement?
storytimewithjesus
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2014 7:00:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/21/2014 7:00:43 AM, slo1 wrote:
The way you position libertarian moves it closer to center from the fringe, but the simple fact is that most libertarians would abhor gov policy which forces people to kick in 20% of their salary into a gov run program that pays for retirement and retirement medical.

Not only that, how can I trust a group that constantly uses countries such as Singapore as the gold standard when they can't give an open and honest assessment of factors which may contribute to Singapore's success, such as compulsory saving for retirement?

Social security and medicare are terrible programs. Let me lay out some information and then explain. The average worker in the US is twice as productive per hour of work as the average worker was in 1965. The average worker's hourly compensation has only increased about 15% during that time. While management pay has increased significantly during that time, management is still a significantly smaller percentage of payroll than employee pay and the growth in income inequality since 1965 accounts for less than half of the difference in growth between worker pay and worker productivity. Even with the recession, a higher percentage of our 18-65 population works today (58.5%) than at any time from 1945 until the mid 1970s (56-58%, prior to the recession it was about 64%). In 1965 there were about 6 workers per retiree. Today there are less than 3 workers per retiree and there will be 2 workers per retiree in about 20 years. The growing retired population consume resources, but aren't working and contributing back to the economy's ability to produce and distribute resources, which means workers have to produce more while accepting less back in order to make up the difference, and their effect on worker pay is as big as the growth in income inequality.

But it's the fact that they consume resources which is really dangerous. If everyone on Earth consumed resources at the rate the average person in the US consumes resources, we would need an entire second Earth to provide them all. 40% of the world's land area is used for agriculture. Agriculture contributes more greenhouse gas emissions than energy or transportation, agricultural areas emit more greenhouse gases and absorb less from the atmosphere than areas left wild, and they deplete topsoil and groundwater much faster. We're running out of affordable fuels; the oil they're fracking from the tarsands takes 10 times as much energy per gallon to extract than it took to extract oil 100 years ago. We've drained all the easy oil reserves, biofuels aren't any better for the environment and the most common, corn ethanol, is even less efficient to produce than tarsands oil. Solar and wind require a lot of land area and precious metals that have to be mined up from the ground.

Some of those problems can be solved through technology, but not all of them. Sustainable agriculture is much more labor intensive than factory farming. Redoing a lot of our infrastructure and building new power plants so we can move away from oil and coal will also be very labor intensive. Retirees increase the amount we need to produce relative to the amount of labor we have available, so a large retired population makes it harder to find the workers necessary to fix these problems because more of them are tied up meeting the needs of people who aren't helping fix the problems their consumption creates.

In short, our retirees are consuming their way to ecological and economic devastation for the rest of us. But hey, according to the Keynesians, rapidly consuming our natural resources by using government to drive demand is good for us, right? At least until you figure out that economics is about resources.
lannan13
Posts: 23,016
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2014 9:22:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/19/2014 1:37:10 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
We know that the communism isn't work - and potentially evil. We know that the libertarian economic do work, every few time it has been employed.

Why hasn't more nations today try its more? Almost every nations, even the smaller one are socialist to some degree - even in a place like Singapore, why so? Isn't small government already prove itself to be potentially effective model?

Our government is just to intwined with the people, because after the Great Depression people began to realize that they blamed the President's Party for the state of the Economy. That's why democrats are so supportive of the New Deal Programs.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
lannan13
Posts: 23,016
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2014 9:23:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/20/2014 6:21:27 PM, Mercury3 wrote:
Almost every nations, even the smaller one are socialist to some degree - even in a place like Singapore, why so? Isn't small government already prove itself to be potentially effective model?

Small government is incompatible with any known political system. In democracy, for example, politicians need to bribe voters to stay in power. Since they constantly try to outbid their competitors, the size of the government tends to increase over time.

Well actually it would work with a Confederacy.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2014 3:09:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/20/2014 6:21:27 PM, Mercury3 wrote:
Almost every nations, even the smaller one are socialist to some degree - even in a place like Singapore, why so? Isn't small government already prove itself to be potentially effective model?

Small government is incompatible with any known political system. In democracy, for example, politicians need to bribe voters to stay in power. Since they constantly try to outbid their competitors, the size of the government tends to increase over time.

The only things known for sure to reduce governments are revolutions and coups.
Congress has proven that any loophole in the Constitution that can be exploited to increase government power and force will in fact be exploited.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2014 12:21:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/20/2014 6:21:27 PM, Mercury3 wrote:
Almost every nations, even the smaller one are socialist to some degree - even in a place like Singapore, why so? Isn't small government already prove itself to be potentially effective model?

Small government is incompatible with any known political system. In democracy, for example, politicians need to bribe voters to stay in power. Since they constantly try to outbid their competitors, the size of the government tends to increase over time.

I think you mean a republic.
A democracy shouldn't have any politicians, since "the people" vote for everything.
My work here is, finally, done.
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 4:24:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/19/2014 1:37:10 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
We know that the communism isn't work - and potentially evil. We know that the libertarian economic do work, every few time it has been employed.

Why hasn't more nations today try its more? Almost every nations, even the smaller one are socialist to some degree - even in a place like Singapore, why so? Isn't small government already prove itself to be potentially effective model?

One word: Greed
You can call me Mark if you like.