5 ms·

> rather than acting as mindless sheep following who knows what. I'll tell you right now, that anyone who uses that phrase is more of a "mindless sheep" than t

by lambda 13y ago

> rather than acting as mindless sheep following who knows what. I'll tell you right now, that anyone who uses that phrase is more of a "mindless sheep" than those he criticizes. > What I am saying is that you want a small non-intrusive government at all levels, from local to federal. Not particularly. There is no intrinsic reason to want a "small government" over a large one (or vice versa). What you want is an effective government, that best matches your interests. Of course, everyone has their own interests, so the best rough metric that we've come up for maximizing the effectiveness of the government across the whole population, and minimizing its harm, are democratic institutions with various protections in place to prevent various types of abuses. Likewise, you don't necessarily want small corporations or large ones. A large corporation has more power and is able to abuse that power more; but it is also frequently more efficient than having lots of small actors, as lots of transactions between independent actors can add friction and cost. Distributed systems have problems, as they can exhibit lots of complex behaviors that can cause destabilizing feedback, and they can be inefficient. Centralized systems have problems, because they provide single points of failure or points of corruption that can be exploited for gain. Some balance between the two of them is necessary, and it's also necessary to spend effort on simply fixing problems that come up rather than thinking that every problem can be solved by adhering to some philosophy of "big government" vs. "small government". > mindless sheep ... wake up and see what is really going on. Did you really just write a long winded "wake up sheeple" post? Are you trying to be a self-parody?

robomartin 13y ago
> I'll tell you right now, that anyone who uses that phrase is more of a "mindless sheep" than those he criticizes. Why? > There is no intrinsic reason to want a "small government" over a large one (or vice versa). What you want is an effective government, that best matches your interests. You would have a point there if "big government" was used to convey the literal meaning of the phrase by Libertarians. It is not. In proper context "big government" refers to size, reach, complexity, all of the above and sometimes even more. It is generally about government that has grown beyond some boundary. This is just like saying "big brother is watching". This doesn't literally mean that your eldest brother or a some kind of a giant person is watching you. You do get that, right? Big government: wants to touch, manipulate and regulate everything and wants to have a say in everything in your life, from how much soda you can drink to which doctors you can see and more. It spends money inefficiently and with damaging results. It thinks it has power over people and that our rights are granted by government and their laws. Small government: stays out of the way and lets market forces act. It enacts and enforces just enough regulations to create protections from extremes and to protect and support those in need. It certainly stays the hell out of your diet, home, sex life and medical choices. It operates within a strict balanced budget framework that ensures our financial stability and well being as a nation. It knows that they derive their ability to act from the will of the people and that our rights cannot be trampled. In this context, yes, you do want small government.
- Nursie 13y ago
  LOL. Medical choices. Medical care is not subject to normal market forces, nobody shops around in an emergency. And by the way, nobody tells you which practitioner you can see in the UK where we have had socialised medicine for decades. You're free to move between practitioners in the state system, and you're free to go private if you wish. Your posts are just right wing and libertarian talking points, your description of 'Big government' hopelessly biased and 'Small government' a whitewash. I also notice that in none of your posts are you in any way opposed to massive defence spending, only healthcare. And you call others 'sheep'!!
  - robomartin 13y ago
    > Medical care is not subject to normal market forces, nobody shops around in an emergency. Oh, please! In an emergency you are going to go to the closest available hospital. As simple as that. > nobody tells you which practitioner you can see in the UK where we have had socialised medicine for decades. Well, that's not how Obamacare works. What's the point of making the comparison of two approaches that are so different. Let's just look at cost. How much would a healthy family of four pay for the NHS? Is there a deductible? Before Obamacare my family paid $600 per month with a $5,000 annual deductible. We got great care and got to choose where to go and which doctors we see. With Obamacare our monthly premium increases to $1,400 per month and our deductible to $10,000. Also, our choices at nearly every level in the process of receiving care have become limited. There are questions about which of the local hospitals we will, effectively, be "assigned" to by attrition and which doctors we might not be able to see. The premium + deductible structure pretty much means that we stand to spend over $26,000 per year on medical care. And, BTW, this isn't a catastrophic plan. With Obamacare the government is effectively, at a minimum, taking an extra $800 per month from us and in the worst case an extra $14,600. And this is for worst care and choices than we had with our prior system. Taking $15,000 a year from a family's budget, when multiplied by potentially millions of families across the nation will have serious consequences. That's a lot of money that will not be available for purchasing. That extra computer, uprgading the old car, intalling wood flooring in the house or taking a vacation simply will not happen. And this will be the case with millions of families and individuals across the nation. You see, you can call me whaever you want. Extreme right wing libertarian moron. That's fine. Shoot the messenger until you are happy. Now let's discuss facts and numbers and real world effects. When we look at facts what i am saying isn't theatrics from a moron but rather a screams from someone saying "the emperor has no clothes!". Besides, there's also this: http://articles.latimes.com/2012/aug/08/opinion/la-oe-dalrymple-british-health-system-20120808 http://articles.latimes.com/2012/aug/08/opinion/la-oe-dalrym... > none of your posts are you in any way opposed to massive defence spending, only healthcare. And you call others 'sheep'!! That is utterly false. I have not brought up the military in his thread but I have in the past. Our military spending is sickening. Our wars are disgusting. And a good deal of our foreign aid is simply wrong and ought to be discontinued. Not only do I want our government to leave us alone, i want them to leave everyone else alone. Our military spending has distorted our economy in ways that are hard to describe and probably even quantify. This is why I love Obamacare as the example that pulled the curtains back to let everyone see how government really works. Pick a number for how much was spent on the website. It's ridiculous. And they are still spending untold millions to fix it. Now imagine all military spending being equally bloated, wasteful and inefficient and ineffective. Add it all up and it is easy to conclude that our government is causing us damage at every level and at a monumental scale. And don't get me started on patents. Care to quantify how much damage just one government agency, the US Patent and Trademark Office, has done to our economy, industry and progress? Call me a moron if you must. You still have to face the facts behind my arguments.
chris_wot 13y ago
>> rather than acting as mindless sheep following who knows what. >I'll tell you right now, that anyone who uses that phrase is more of a "mindless sheep" than those he criticizes. Does accusing someone of being a mindless sheep because they call others mindless sheep make you a mindless sheep? For that matter, sheep aren't mindless but if they were then if I described them as mindless sheep then how could I then be a mindless sheep? By the very nature of describing their mindlessness I show that I have a mind. Plus, I am a human and cannot be shorn, so I'm clearly not a sheep. Ponder on that.
Nursie 13y ago
>> Did you really just write a long winded "wake up sheeple" post? Are you trying to be a self-parody? At this point internet libertarianism is a form of performance art, I'm sure of it!

by lambda 13y ago

robomartin 13y ago

> I'll tell you right now, that anyone who uses that phrase is more of a "mindless sheep" than those he criticizes. Why? > There is no intrinsic reason to want a "small government" over a large one (or vice versa). What you want is an effective government, that best matches your interests. You would have a point there if "big government" was used to convey the literal meaning of the phrase by Libertarians. It is not. In proper context "big government" refers to size, reach, complexity, all of the above and sometimes even more. It is generally about government that has grown beyond some boundary. This is just like saying "big brother is watching". This doesn't literally mean that your eldest brother or a some kind of a giant person is watching you. You do get that, right? Big government: wants to touch, manipulate and regulate everything and wants to have a say in everything in your life, from how much soda you can drink to which doctors you can see and more. It spends money inefficiently and with damaging results. It thinks it has power over people and that our rights are granted by government and their laws. Small government: stays out of the way and lets market forces act. It enacts and enforces just enough regulations to create protections from extremes and to protect and support those in need. It certainly stays the hell out of your diet, home, sex life and medical choices. It operates within a strict balanced budget framework that ensures our financial stability and well being as a nation. It knows that they derive their ability to act from the will of the people and that our rights cannot be trampled. In this context, yes, you do want small government.

Nursie 13y ago
LOL. Medical choices. Medical care is not subject to normal market forces, nobody shops around in an emergency. And by the way, nobody tells you which practitioner you can see in the UK where we have had socialised medicine for decades. You're free to move between practitioners in the state system, and you're free to go private if you wish. Your posts are just right wing and libertarian talking points, your description of 'Big government' hopelessly biased and 'Small government' a whitewash. I also notice that in none of your posts are you in any way opposed to massive defence spending, only healthcare. And you call others 'sheep'!!
- robomartin 13y ago
  > Medical care is not subject to normal market forces, nobody shops around in an emergency. Oh, please! In an emergency you are going to go to the closest available hospital. As simple as that. > nobody tells you which practitioner you can see in the UK where we have had socialised medicine for decades. Well, that's not how Obamacare works. What's the point of making the comparison of two approaches that are so different. Let's just look at cost. How much would a healthy family of four pay for the NHS? Is there a deductible? Before Obamacare my family paid $600 per month with a $5,000 annual deductible. We got great care and got to choose where to go and which doctors we see. With Obamacare our monthly premium increases to $1,400 per month and our deductible to $10,000. Also, our choices at nearly every level in the process of receiving care have become limited. There are questions about which of the local hospitals we will, effectively, be "assigned" to by attrition and which doctors we might not be able to see. The premium + deductible structure pretty much means that we stand to spend over $26,000 per year on medical care. And, BTW, this isn't a catastrophic plan. With Obamacare the government is effectively, at a minimum, taking an extra $800 per month from us and in the worst case an extra $14,600. And this is for worst care and choices than we had with our prior system. Taking $15,000 a year from a family's budget, when multiplied by potentially millions of families across the nation will have serious consequences. That's a lot of money that will not be available for purchasing. That extra computer, uprgading the old car, intalling wood flooring in the house or taking a vacation simply will not happen. And this will be the case with millions of families and individuals across the nation. You see, you can call me whaever you want. Extreme right wing libertarian moron. That's fine. Shoot the messenger until you are happy. Now let's discuss facts and numbers and real world effects. When we look at facts what i am saying isn't theatrics from a moron but rather a screams from someone saying "the emperor has no clothes!". Besides, there's also this: http://articles.latimes.com/2012/aug/08/opinion/la-oe-dalrymple-british-health-system-20120808 http://articles.latimes.com/2012/aug/08/opinion/la-oe-dalrym... > none of your posts are you in any way opposed to massive defence spending, only healthcare. And you call others 'sheep'!! That is utterly false. I have not brought up the military in his thread but I have in the past. Our military spending is sickening. Our wars are disgusting. And a good deal of our foreign aid is simply wrong and ought to be discontinued. Not only do I want our government to leave us alone, i want them to leave everyone else alone. Our military spending has distorted our economy in ways that are hard to describe and probably even quantify. This is why I love Obamacare as the example that pulled the curtains back to let everyone see how government really works. Pick a number for how much was spent on the website. It's ridiculous. And they are still spending untold millions to fix it. Now imagine all military spending being equally bloated, wasteful and inefficient and ineffective. Add it all up and it is easy to conclude that our government is causing us damage at every level and at a monumental scale. And don't get me started on patents. Care to quantify how much damage just one government agency, the US Patent and Trademark Office, has done to our economy, industry and progress? Call me a moron if you must. You still have to face the facts behind my arguments.

chris_wot 13y ago

>> rather than acting as mindless sheep following who knows what. >I'll tell you right now, that anyone who uses that phrase is more of a "mindless sheep" than those he criticizes. Does accusing someone of being a mindless sheep because they call others mindless sheep make you a mindless sheep? For that matter, sheep aren't mindless but if they were then if I described them as mindless sheep then how could I then be a mindless sheep? By the very nature of describing their mindlessness I show that I have a mind. Plus, I am a human and cannot be shorn, so I'm clearly not a sheep. Ponder on that.

Nursie 13y ago

>> Did you really just write a long winded "wake up sheeple" post? Are you trying to be a self-parody? At this point internet libertarianism is a form of performance art, I'm sure of it!