30 ms·

I found it wrong when it happened before Trump. I continue to find it wrong. This is one of the main reasons I like small government. They tend to do a shitty j

by fixxer 10y ago

I found it wrong when it happened before Trump. I continue to find it wrong. This is one of the main reasons I like small government. They tend to do a shitty job.

yjftsjthsd-h 10y ago
> This is one of the main reasons I like small government. They tend to do a shitty job. Sorry, this doesn't parse for me. Why is that desirable?
- tbihl 10y ago
  I believe poster meant he prefers to keep government small because they muck things up regardless of size. Better to minimize the impact that way.
- fixxer 10y ago
  Have you found large institutions to be more responsible and efficient? I have not. I have found the opposite. Large orgs always have stories like this. Management and accountability are hard to scale and the problem is as true for the private sector as it is for public. Customs is a straw man for the argument at large, but nevertheless the statement works: I prefer small government because I've seen the collassal fuckups they are capable of at scale. (My favorite government entity is the USGS) @fictioncircle: no reply available, so I'll address your question here: no, we should not ban large business. We should provide basic structure to support competition. Since government is not something we can frame competitively (we can't pick which government to use once one is established without substantial "frictions"), we should just keep them small and out of the way.
  - fictioncircle 10y ago
    > Customs is a straw man for the argument at large, but nevertheless the statement works: I prefer small government because I've seen the collassal fuckups they are capable of at scale. The same is true of businesses. Should we ban large corporations since the same logic applies?
  - tbihl 10y ago
    "The same is true of businesses. Should we ban large corporations since the same logic applies?" @fictioncircle: Ban? No. But an end to bailouts would sure be a nice change. Large size should bring additional risk, not a governmental assurance that you'll never have to face any consequences for misbehavior.
  - hackuser 10y ago
    > we should just keep them small and out of the way Large businesses also cause colossal problems when unregulated. Consider the Great Depression and Great Recession, the two greatest economic calamities of the last century. The answer to the problem of large institutions isn't to give some unfettered power.
  - justin66 10y ago
    The notion that regions where government is poorly funded or barely present perform better in terms of due process is so counterfactual that it's hard to know what to say about it.

by fixxer 10y ago

I found it wrong when it happened before Trump. I continue to find it wrong. This is one of the main reasons I like small government. They tend to do a shitty job.

yjftsjthsd-h 10y ago

> This is one of the main reasons I like small government. They tend to do a shitty job. Sorry, this doesn't parse for me. Why is that desirable?

tbihl 10y ago
I believe poster meant he prefers to keep government small because they muck things up regardless of size. Better to minimize the impact that way.
fixxer 10y ago
Have you found large institutions to be more responsible and efficient? I have not. I have found the opposite. Large orgs always have stories like this. Management and accountability are hard to scale and the problem is as true for the private sector as it is for public. Customs is a straw man for the argument at large, but nevertheless the statement works: I prefer small government because I've seen the collassal fuckups they are capable of at scale. (My favorite government entity is the USGS) @fictioncircle: no reply available, so I'll address your question here: no, we should not ban large business. We should provide basic structure to support competition. Since government is not something we can frame competitively (we can't pick which government to use once one is established without substantial "frictions"), we should just keep them small and out of the way.
- fictioncircle 10y ago
  > Customs is a straw man for the argument at large, but nevertheless the statement works: I prefer small government because I've seen the collassal fuckups they are capable of at scale. The same is true of businesses. Should we ban large corporations since the same logic applies?
- tbihl 10y ago
  "The same is true of businesses. Should we ban large corporations since the same logic applies?" @fictioncircle: Ban? No. But an end to bailouts would sure be a nice change. Large size should bring additional risk, not a governmental assurance that you'll never have to face any consequences for misbehavior.
- hackuser 10y ago
  > we should just keep them small and out of the way Large businesses also cause colossal problems when unregulated. Consider the Great Depression and Great Recession, the two greatest economic calamities of the last century. The answer to the problem of large institutions isn't to give some unfettered power.
- justin66 10y ago
  The notion that regions where government is poorly funded or barely present perform better in terms of due process is so counterfactual that it's hard to know what to say about it.