Redael Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 Small government- Pros- -More personal freedom, government has less control over its citizens -Free market -Less government regulations holding back economy -Lower taxes due to lower spending cause prices to be lowered and less tax, which along with less government regulations would create Americas largest economic boom Cons- -Less help for people in poverty -less government-funded organizations(not nesscarily a bad thing) Large government Pros -Help for people in poverty -More government funded organizations Cons -Little to no personal freedom -Socialism(not always asscosiated with large government, but commonly is)punishes economic success, hurting the econmy -More government regulations holding back our economy -Higher taxes due to higher spending( in the case of socialsim higher taxes on corporations force prices to skyrocket, and cancel out the money being given to the poor, which leads to the government printing money to give to the poor most likely, then causing an inflation crisis) Tl dr- Small government=economic prosperity , Big Government-Economic Collapse Quote Gary Johnson 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doktor Avalanche Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 Small government vs. Big Government arguments mean nothing without what type of political system is in place. 4 Quote Beer. Damn Good Beer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redael Posted January 21, 2016 Author Share Posted January 21, 2016 Thus debate is just about small vs big government in general , not spefic Quote Gary Johnson 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Vietnam Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 (edited) big governments nazi germany america now isis small governments vietnam now soviet union north korea please spot difference Edited January 21, 2016 by Captain_Vietnam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doktor Avalanche Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 Thus debate is just about small vs big government in general , not spefic Well then. Small, please- with a side of fries. 2 Quote Beer. Damn Good Beer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redael Posted January 21, 2016 Author Share Posted January 21, 2016 big governments nazi germany america now isis small governments vietnam now soviet union north korea please spot difference North Korea does not have a small government, the government is big enough to force citizens to worship their leader, and doesn't let them. Also, the Soviet Union wasn't a small government, more in the middle. I do agree with America now being big government, and comparing them to Nazis and Isis, if the government wants to rid themselves of that comparison the should smart up and shrink their government Quote Gary Johnson 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Brother Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 (edited) The leadership of the Soviet Union definitely goes under the "big government" category. It was a statist one-party state and literally massive in size. Statists believe that the state should control either economic or social policy (or both) and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union most certainly did that. Any authoritarian states, and particularly totalitarian states need large governments in order to maintain themselves. Edited January 21, 2016 by Big Brother 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solomon Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 ... I do agree with America now being big government, and comparing them to Nazis and Isis, if the government wants to rid themselves of that comparison the should smart up and shrink their government It seems we need an Islamic State addendum to Godwin's Law. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redael Posted January 24, 2016 Author Share Posted January 24, 2016 It seems we need an Islamic State addendum to Godwin's Law.Do you know who else believed that Godwin's law was true? Hitler Quote Gary Johnson 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stujenske Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 Big government, of course. How can we trust filthy corporations to run our police, military, schools, and hospitals? 4 Quote <insert signature here> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redael Posted January 24, 2016 Author Share Posted January 24, 2016 SMALL government, of course. How can we trust filthy GOVERNMENTS to run our police, military, schools, and hospitals? Quote Gary Johnson 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lannan13 Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 You can still help people in the free market. It's just not the government doing it, but private industries. 1 Quote Tiocfaidh ár lá =Censored by Politics and War Moderation team= Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redael Posted January 25, 2016 Author Share Posted January 25, 2016 You can still help people in the free market. It's just not the government doing it, but private industries. Agreed, and big corporations aren't going to overly tax you and restrict economic growth with unesscary regulations. Also who starts wars and sends millions of people to die, Governent or corporations. What did hitter run, a government or a corporation. What taxed the American people and was the very spark of our revolution, Government or corporations? Quote Gary Johnson 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lannan13 Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 big governments nazi germany america now isis small governments vietnam now soviet union north korea please spot difference Yes, you have a different view of "small" then the rest of us. The USSR and other Totalitarian communist government are quite large in themself so that they could manage the economies. Captialist governments do not have that. Agreed, and big corporations aren't going to overly tax you and restrict economic growth with unesscary regulations. Also who starts wars and sends millions of people to die, Governent or corporations. What did hitter run, a government or a corporation. What taxed the American people and was the very spark of our revolution, Government or corporations? I quite agree that the Corperation is quite better. That's why I tend to side a lot with AnCaps. Quote Tiocfaidh ár lá =Censored by Politics and War Moderation team= Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Vietnam Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Yes, you have a different view of "small" then the rest of us. The USSR and other Totalitarian communist government are quite large in themself so that they could manage the economies. Captialist governments do not have that. I quite agree that the Corperation is quite better. That's why I tend to side a lot with AnCaps. capitalist governments are big due to excesses of capitalism Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redael Posted January 25, 2016 Author Share Posted January 25, 2016 capitalist governments are big due to excesses of capitalism I don't think you understand the governments role in true free-market captilalisim. Which is- don't interfere and stay small Quote Gary Johnson 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tali Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 (edited) Agreed, and big corporations aren't going to overly tax you and restrict economic growth with unesscary regulations. Also who starts wars and sends millions of people to die, Governent or corporations. What did hitter run, a government or a corporation. What taxed the American people and was the very spark of our revolution, Government or corporations?Lmfao, this is the most idiotic argument towards the big "bad government" who just love to make sure our freedom is taken away from us . You want small to no government and no regulations on the market? OK, have fun drinking tainted waters, breathe in that fresh smog in the morning, and listen to human beings being used by greed. And corporations would cause war if they could. Hell, they would try to kill each other off to get rid of competition Edited January 25, 2016 by Olivier Mira 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lannan13 Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 capitalist governments are big due to excesses of capitalism Do you even know what Communism is? 2 Quote Tiocfaidh ár lá =Censored by Politics and War Moderation team= Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redael Posted January 25, 2016 Author Share Posted January 25, 2016 Lmfao, this is the most idiotic argument towards the big "bad government" who just love to make sure our freedom is taken away from us . You want small to no government and no regulations on the market? OK, have fun drinking tainted waters, breathe in that fresh smog in the morning, and listen to human beings being used by greed. And corporations would cause war if they could. Hell, they would try to kill each other off to get rid of competition My point is Coroporations are equal to or greater than governments, and if they could cause war they would be turned into a Big corrupt Government i.e. Atlas from CoD, you still consider them a Coroporation and not a government at the end of the game. And free market captilalisim-The company with the least tainted water survives beacuse it makes the consumers happy, smog-Doesnt kill you, if you have athsma get an inhaler, anything else see your doctor. Human beings used by greed-Stop antagonising Coroporations and the one percent, without corporations who will make stuff, the government? The government always gives you the lowest quality stuff possible, especially if they don't have Coroporations to compete with. Without captitalsim what's the incentive for technology advancement. Also stop villianizing the 1%, who is getting there money they earned stolen from them, villinze thoose who cause everyone else's tax rates to go up so they can buy drugs with government money/sell food stamps for drugs, or a non drug addict living off the government beacuse they didn't do enough in college/working to advance in free market. Socialists support their argument beacuse it "feels moral" while captialists know that capitalism is moral and effective, and the best option mankind ever came up with. Quote Gary Johnson 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doktor Avalanche Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 (edited) Lmfao, this is the most idiotic argument towards the big "bad government" who just love to make sure our freedom is taken away from us . You want small to no government and no regulations on the market? OK, have fun drinking tainted waters, breathe in that fresh smog in the morning, and listen to human beings being used by greed. And corporations would cause war if they could. Hell, they would try to kill each other off to get rid of competition Do you seriously believe society as a whole would allow any corporation to go unchecked and wreak havoc on the nation if we reduced the scope and size of our current bloated system which causes more problems than it fixes? Remember, Flint was caused by our current regulations which many praise as perfect, or close to, right now. Edited January 25, 2016 by Lord Asmodeus 1 Quote Beer. Damn Good Beer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redael Posted January 25, 2016 Author Share Posted January 25, 2016 Government-No public support, doesn't care Coroporation-No public support, nobody buys from them, they go out of business in favor of something people like Quote Gary Johnson 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
---- Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 The real issue is whether basic services such as water, heat, etc. should be part of the profit-seeking market. A basic rule of market economics posits that people and companies seek foremost to make a profit. There is nothing wrong with this principle, however, I feel that any responsible society should clearly delineate what can and cannot belong to the profit-making sphere or in other words, the market. Private business is hardly the problem. Neither is private property in itself. Mixed economies are possibly the worst outcome. I say this not as an livid opponent of regulation nor as a fervent anticapitalist, but rather from the point of view of the dynamics present in the various 'services' found in mixed economies. In a 'mixed' system, profit-seeking firms frequently control gas, electricity and similar vital services. They operate as on a profit-seeking model, yet they are guaranteed their de-facto monopoly by the state. In other words, guaranteed profits and no competition. The service from such firms is usually terrible, since the firms in question face no competition, yet are guaranteed their existence. Some would argue in favour of de-regulation in favour of competition. But then the purpose of the service providers still remains muddled by profit-seeking. Furthermore, these firms can still halt electricity and other vitals to those who do not pay their bills. I feel that vitals should be guaranteed exclusively through taxation. Each citizen pays (or attempts to evade) taxes. One lives in a nation and one pays its taxes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redael Posted January 25, 2016 Author Share Posted January 25, 2016 The real issue is whether basic services such as water, heat, etc. should be part of the profit-seeking market. A basic rule of market economics posits that people and companies seek foremost to make a profit. There is nothing wrong with this principle, however, I feel that any responsible society should clearly delineate what can and cannot belong to the profit-making sphere or in other words, the market. Private business is hardly the problem. Neither is private property in itself. Mixed economies are possibly the worst outcome. I say this not as an livid opponent of regulation nor as a fervent anticapitalist, but rather from the point of view of the dynamics present in the various 'services' found in mixed economies. In a 'mixed' system, profit-seeking firms frequently control gas, electricity and similar vital services. They operate as on a profit-seeking model, yet they are guaranteed their de-facto monopoly by the state. In other words, guaranteed profits and no competition. The service from such firms is usually terrible, since the firms in question face no competition, yet are guaranteed their existence. Some would argue in favour of de-regulation in favour of competition. But then the purpose of the service providers still remains muddled by profit-seeking. Furthermore, these firms can still halt electricity and other vitals to those who do not pay their bills. I feel that vitals should be guaranteed exclusively through taxation. Each citizen pays (or attempts to evade) taxes. One lives in a nation and one pays its taxes. Profit seeking competition=Better product produced due to More incentive to produce best product Quote Gary Johnson 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
---- Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 Profit seeking competition=Better product produced due to More incentive to produce best product Not necessarily. Although true in some cases, you seem to idealise profit seeking as exclusively motivated to create the best product. Profits are also positively affected by cost-cutting and other measures detrimental to the consumer. You have to look at both sides of what you propose. Vitals, such as electricity, water, heating, and other services are crucial to survival. Certainly, there are other very difficult alternatives, but with present-day technology there is no reason that persons should be denied such services. These are basic products that hardly require revolutionary improvements so frequently touted by the advocates of competition. The point is that these services, upon which people often depend upon for their very lives, cannot treated as mere means in a quest to increase profit. That creates a dangerous precedent where financial success outweighs the value of life. It is imperative to think beyond ideology, utopianism, or some abstract obsession with freedom or equality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doktor Avalanche Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 It's better to allow sanitation, heat, electric, water, fire, police and gas to be non-profit if seeking to not be part of the state. Quote Beer. Damn Good Beer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.