3 ms·

oh, you changed the subjects. I'll answer your question. The Democrats are the party of big government. Whether that's repressive zoning and taxes or repressiv

oh, you changed the subjects. I'll answer your question. The Democrats are the party of big government. Whether that's repressive zoning and taxes or repressive slavery or repressive public health regulations... the Democrats are and always will be supportive of repressive big government policys. The only thing that's changed is the way the Democrats express their support of oppression.

dctoedt 3y ago
So you're a "the free market will take care of all the things!" thinker, then? EDIT: I wasn't the one who posted the "Living in a society requires structure" comment.
- nerdchum 3y ago
  not a single person is arguing for anarchy, but a small government to take care of the essentials and the free market will handle the rest absolutely.
  - defrost 3y ago
    Pragmatically, in the USofA, achieving small government would be much much easier than achieving a market free from all forms of economic privilege, monopolies and artificial scarcities. And efficient small government will be a moonshot.
    - nerdchum 3y ago
      Monopoly? Its confusing how you can argue against monopolies but support the the biggest monopoly of all... the government. ANY fair system is completely impossible just by the nature of human beings. There is no world and no system which unfairness does not exist. However, a free market at least doesnt put all the power and control into the hands of a singular monopolistic entity that can use violence as an option.
  - dctoedt 3y ago
    > a small government to take care of the essentials and the free market will handle the rest absolutely. Yeah, I used to believe that, because it was such a neat theory and Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged seemed so right. (I was a teenager.) Life has convinced me otherwise. There's a sweet spot (which probably moves over time), but free-market absolutists aren't being realistic, largely for the reasons mentioned by 'defrost in response to you. (NY Times lead economics writer Binyamin Appelbaum got it right in his book The Economists' Hour when he said, of Milton Friedman, that Friedman celebrated drivers but took roads for granted.)
    - nerdchum 3y ago
      > Life has convinced me otherwise. Anec-data you make a lot of claims without a lot of evidence. A single monopolistic entity that can use violence to accomplish it's means is no way to run a country.
      - dctoedt 3y ago
        > you make a lot of claims without a lot of evidence. Wait, are you not the one making sweeping claims about small government and the free market? I'd love to spend several days with you discussing what has caused me to evolve from pretty-conservative and -libertarian Republican in my younger days, to moderate liberal today. Unfortunately, I'm heads-down with, um, work, so I'll have to take a rain check.

dctoedt 3y ago

So you're a "the free market will take care of all the things!" thinker, then? EDIT: I wasn't the one who posted the "Living in a society requires structure" comment.

nerdchum 3y ago
not a single person is arguing for anarchy, but a small government to take care of the essentials and the free market will handle the rest absolutely.
- defrost 3y ago
  Pragmatically, in the USofA, achieving small government would be much much easier than achieving a market free from all forms of economic privilege, monopolies and artificial scarcities. And efficient small government will be a moonshot.
  - nerdchum 3y ago
    Monopoly? Its confusing how you can argue against monopolies but support the the biggest monopoly of all... the government. ANY fair system is completely impossible just by the nature of human beings. There is no world and no system which unfairness does not exist. However, a free market at least doesnt put all the power and control into the hands of a singular monopolistic entity that can use violence as an option.
- dctoedt 3y ago
  > a small government to take care of the essentials and the free market will handle the rest absolutely. Yeah, I used to believe that, because it was such a neat theory and Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged seemed so right. (I was a teenager.) Life has convinced me otherwise. There's a sweet spot (which probably moves over time), but free-market absolutists aren't being realistic, largely for the reasons mentioned by 'defrost in response to you. (NY Times lead economics writer Binyamin Appelbaum got it right in his book The Economists' Hour when he said, of Milton Friedman, that Friedman celebrated drivers but took roads for granted.)
  - nerdchum 3y ago
    > Life has convinced me otherwise. Anec-data you make a lot of claims without a lot of evidence. A single monopolistic entity that can use violence to accomplish it's means is no way to run a country.
    - dctoedt 3y ago
      > you make a lot of claims without a lot of evidence. Wait, are you not the one making sweeping claims about small government and the free market? I'd love to spend several days with you discussing what has caused me to evolve from pretty-conservative and -libertarian Republican in my younger days, to moderate liberal today. Unfortunately, I'm heads-down with, um, work, so I'll have to take a rain check.