Capitalism vs Communism dosnt matter

[Lelouche]

Your statement reeks of "The States right to exist"
The State does not have the right to exist, it exists purely at the whim of the populace, and it's "Right" to rule, is rather a privilege, one that can be revoked at any time, for any reason.

The State is not sovereign, it is a construct. Only individuals are sovereign.

Absent from the State, all individuals are free, (have Freedom) States exist when masses of people of similar ideological mindsets desire security, and thus sacrifice a portion of their freedom, in exchange for that security. (Ideally, There are governments that do not rule by consent, and thus deserve to be destroyed, it is the will of the people)

Power grants freedom. So long as someone has control over himself, he has freedom. The moment someone is weaker than another opportunistic person, their freedom is forfeit in entirety. The State allows some Freedom to be granted, in exchange protecting from others who would take away all freedom, originally. Now, the State allows some freedom to be granted, in exchange for protecting from others who would take away all freedom, and States who would grant less freedom or protection.

Correct in Green
Wrong in Red
Freedom can only be taken
It cannot be "Granted"

Absent from "Stronger" individuals, people are free. it's the outside influence that strips individuals of their rights
The act of being "Weaker" does not "forfeit" ones "Freedom" rather it proves the need for a system (Government) that protects weaker individuals from Greedy individuals.

This however is not a "Right" to exist, but rather a desire by individuals to be safe from harm.

[Minnarkh]

All those years of slowly developing the state to serve the people the best they can, to just abolish it?

No thanks.

If it were only true. Sadly the state has developed into a vehicle that can be used to serve the corporate interest of a few rather than the people as a whole.

Minimal government is a necessary evil, large government is just an unnecessary evil that hinders it's it inhabitants more than it actually helps them.

Let see the developments: Improved health care.
Improved education.
Improved safety.

Without big government lots of these improvements wouldn't of happened.

I do not see neither education nor healthcare being improved under a large government. Private schools are almost always of higher quality than public institutions. The same thing could be said about private healthcare versus government run healthcare. The best argument you could make against these two privatized functions would be cost and accessibility. Even then I think there are ways to make both just as accessible and affordable under a private system.

Safety is an interesting topic. One could argue that the regulations and restrictions of certain government institutions such as the FDA for example have actually inadvertently caused more deaths by delaying medical breakthroughs. Not to mention that institutions such as these are prone to corporate influence and corruption.

All those years of slowly developing the state to serve the people the best they can, to just abolish it?

No thanks.

If it were only true. Sadly the state has developed into a vehicle that can be used to serve the corporate interest of a few rather than the people as a whole.

Minimal government is a necessary evil, large government is just an unnecessary evil that hinders it's it inhabitants more than it helps them.

Let's try this again.

Small government can be as bad or worse than big government. The size of government is not the issue, it's the quality of government. A government that is not accountable to its people, that does not serve the people's interests is a bad government. A government that is accountable and does serve the people's interests is a good government. Size is irrelevant.

You will be hard pressed to find a government that works only for the good of it's people. I think overall a nation can run more efficiently under a smaller government with less restrictions than a large government.

[North Suran]

Let's try this again.

Small government can be as bad or worse than big government. The size of government is not the issue, it's the quality of government. A government that is not accountable to its people, that does not serve the people's interests is a bad government. A government that is accountable and does serve the people's interests is a good government. Size is irrelevant.

You will be hard pressed to find a government that works only for the good of it's people. I think overall a nation can run more efficiently under a smaller government with less restrictions than a large government.

Efficient does not equal beneficial.

The US healthcare system is efficient. It also leaves over 30 million US citizens without health coverage.

[New Ziedrich]

I'd like to differentiate between a simple desire for goods and services, including "luxury" items that aren't strictly necessary to sustain life and health, and what I consider to be greed, which is actually pretty similar, but with the added willingness to commit unethical and downright mean methods of obtaining said goods and wealth and so on. It's less "I want more stuff" than it is "I am willing to hurt you so I can have more stuff."

Check your shoes, your clothes, your computer, your everyday household items. Tell me, how were they all made?

Stuff was all made overseas, in factories that exist only because it's more profitable for companies to manufacture goods there. I probably already know the answer to this, but why do you ask?

[Treznor]

I agree with both of you. Greed is the problem, but greed is what drives modern economies. The solution is to temper greed with compassion.

The trick is to temper greed with not compassion, but moderation. Through the law.

If the law is written with compassion, then fine. But without compassion, there is no moderation to greed.

[Darenjo]

Capitalism and Communism are merely economic systems, what really matters is the PEOPLE versus the STATE. Some communists argue that capitalism is always fascistic, even if theirs not a government, because corporations will supposedly control all of the power. This is a very half is glass full view of anarcho/minarcho-capitalism. The same could be said about Communism, in which it has a clear fascistic nature to it as well because of you owing everything to your Commune, who essentially becomes your "government". Honestly, both ways of looking at the economics of it are half is glass full. Im willing to say that there really ISN'T a perfect economic system out there, and there isn't truly a perfect form on government out there either. But what I am saying is that no matter what your economic beliefs are, the real enemy is the STATE. Either restrict the state or abolish it all together. That's what can TRULY free us all.

The enemy can be the state, and often is. However, capitalism vs socialism/communism does matter. I also disagree with you where you say that there is no perfect economic system. Pure capitalism is perfect. The reason nobody has seen this perfection is that whenever someone tries to create it (and this has only ever happened in the US), the liberals dilute it with socialist programs like welfare and nationalizing of industry.

Pure capitalism is not perfect, just look at the 1880s, the closest America got to pure capitalism. Working conditions were horrible, people died in factories, children as young as six were working, the minimum wage was 25 cents (yes, even back then that was nothing) per DAY, and a whole list of other stuff...oh, employers could fire workers for whatever, race, religion, gender, language, national origin, they were sarcastic, they were liberal/conservative, their political party, and so on.
Nationalization of industry is a communist idea, not a liberal one. Welfare can be easily justified as it provides food, money, supplies, etc. for those whom capitalism has failed.
Btw, it should be capitalism vs socialism vs communism as there are many socialist governments that hate communist policies.

[Glorious Homeland]

Pure capitalism is perfect. The reason nobody has seen this perfection is that whenever someone tries to create it (and this has only ever happened in the US), the liberals dilute it with socialist programs like welfare and nationalizing of industry.

If this is true, why after writing "The Wealth of Nations" did Adam Smith change his tune radically from being pro-free market after the American war of independence? He saw the reality of the situation tear his work to shreds because unregulated, the tobacco companies stockpiled and then sold off tobacco at an extortionate prices given a halt in supply given the conflict. This exploited the average consumer; it did not help them. And that's besides the recent and 1929 financial crashes, which shoot the idea that financial markets are self-regulating to death. Besides, he himself stated that governments should fund public education and banking regulation. If the founder of lassies-faire economic theory turned his back on his own works and proposed state owned and funded education for all... what does that say about the viability of what you are proposing? Hm? Liberals and socialists didn't exist in the 1770s, they didn't foul up Adam Smith's belief that the free market is the perfect system; it was the lack of regulation of companies, and the things this allowed them to do to exploit their consumers that did that.

I think a pure capitalist society would be VERY interesting, don't get me wrong, but it won't be humanitarian... although some dynamics it would have would interestingly be very humanitarian by nature (I'll not explain as it'd give away ideas for stories I can write later on ). I need to write a scifi story about the concept, an opposite to 1984's setting in a socialist dictatorship; a capitalist dictatorship, where the central bank is the government. But history is against it when you say it's the perfect system.

[Minnarkh]

Let's try this again.

Small government can be as bad or worse than big government. The size of government is not the issue, it's the quality of government. A government that is not accountable to its people, that does not serve the people's interests is a bad government. A government that is accountable and does serve the people's interests is a good government. Size is irrelevant.

You will be hard pressed to find a government that works only for the good of it's people. I think overall a nation can run more efficiently under a smaller government with less restrictions than a large government.

Efficient does not equal beneficial.

The US healthcare system is efficient. It also leaves over 30 million US citizens without health coverage.

Valid point, but part of the reason why the U.S. system is inefficient and not as beneficial is because government policy does not allow insurance companies to compete across state lines. This concentrates the power into a few companies and allows them to raises prices as they see fit. Getting rid of these regulations would allow companies to compete nation wide with each other lowering prices and allowing more accessibility to more people.

[Self--Esteem]

All those years of slowly developing the state to serve the people the best they can, to just abolish it?

No thanks.

If it were only true. Sadly the state has developed into a vehicle that can be used to serve the corporate interest of a few rather than the people as a whole.

Minimal government is a necessary evil, large government is just an unnecessary evil that hinders it's it inhabitants more than it helps them.

Let's try this again.

Small government can be as bad or worse than big government. The size of government is not the issue, it's the quality of government. A government that is not accountable to its people, that does not serve the people's interests is a bad government. A government that is accountable and does serve the people's interests is a good government. Size is irrelevant.

Size is absolutely not irrelevant. Small governments do not/can not come up with such bad decisions as the housing bubble, bailouts of doomed to fail companies,the integration of new laws that do not make any sense, etc. etc.

[Glorious Homeland]

Valid point, but part of the reason why the U.S. system is inefficient and not as beneficial is because government policy does not allow insurance companies to compete across state lines. This concentrates the power into a few companies and allows them to raises prices as they see fit. Getting rid of these regulations would allow companies to compete nation wide with each other lowering prices and allowing more accessibility to more people.

That doesn't matter, those without health cover are often with preconditions. A public health company, or subsidies for those that can't afford insurance, or legislation that says the companies can't turn away the individuals with preconditions would work. The issue is that a company will get no profit or gain from accepting a patient with preconditions, so they just won't.

He has cancer? So he can't work for his family, and his children cry themselves to sleep every night with worry for what will happen to daddy? The company will say NMFP, and rightly so, since they are not a charity, they are a company. They won't profit from him even if he does join and pays above average rates for cancer treatment.

[North Suran]

All those years of slowly developing the state to serve the people the best they can, to just abolish it?

No thanks.

If it were only true. Sadly the state has developed into a vehicle that can be used to serve the corporate interest of a few rather than the people as a whole.

Minimal government is a necessary evil, large government is just an unnecessary evil that hinders it's it inhabitants more than it helps them.

Let's try this again.

Small government can be as bad or worse than big government. The size of government is not the issue, it's the quality of government. A government that is not accountable to its people, that does not serve the people's interests is a bad government. A government that is accountable and does serve the people's interests is a good government. Size is irrelevant.

Size is absolutely not irrelevant. Small governments do not/can not come up with such bad decisions as the housing bubble, bailouts of doomed to fail companies,the integration of new laws that do not make any sense, etc. etc.

Ha ha ha...

No.

Sorry, darling. State infallibility is not inversely proportional to size.

[Self--Esteem]

All those years of slowly developing the state to serve the people the best they can, to just abolish it?

No thanks.

If it were only true. Sadly the state has developed into a vehicle that can be used to serve the corporate interest of a few rather than the people as a whole.

Minimal government is a necessary evil, large government is just an unnecessary evil that hinders it's it inhabitants more than it helps them.

Let's try this again.

Small government can be as bad or worse than big government. The size of government is not the issue, it's the quality of government. A government that is not accountable to its people, that does not serve the people's interests is a bad government. A government that is accountable and does serve the people's interests is a good government. Size is irrelevant.

Size is absolutely not irrelevant. Small governments do not/can not come up with such bad decisions as the housing bubble, bailouts of doomed to fail companies,the integration of new laws that do not make any sense, etc. etc.

Ha ha ha...

No.

Sorry, darling. State infallibility is not inversely proportional to size.

You obviously do not know anything about small/minimal governments, then. A small government, as described by many Libertarians, does not even have the power to bailout companies or regulate.

A government that only keeps up the outmost basic laws hardly gets the chance to fail.

[North Suran]

All those years of slowly developing the state to serve the people the best they can, to just abolish it?

No thanks.

If it were only true. Sadly the state has developed into a vehicle that can be used to serve the corporate interest of a few rather than the people as a whole.

Minimal government is a necessary evil, large government is just an unnecessary evil that hinders it's it inhabitants more than it helps them.

Let's try this again.

Small government can be as bad or worse than big government. The size of government is not the issue, it's the quality of government. A government that is not accountable to its people, that does not serve the people's interests is a bad government. A government that is accountable and does serve the people's interests is a good government. Size is irrelevant.

Size is absolutely not irrelevant. Small governments do not/can not come up with such bad decisions as the housing bubble, bailouts of doomed to fail companies,the integration of new laws that do not make any sense, etc. etc.

Ha ha ha...

No.

Sorry, darling. State infallibility is not inversely proportional to size.

You obviously do not know anything about small/minimal governments, then. A small government, as described by many Libertarians, does not even have the power to bailout companies or regulate.

But it still has the power to screw up - badly. Unless you're calling for outright anarchism, even a small government will be introducing legislation and caring for defence. They are still liable to mistakes and errors, just as much as a large government. Not to mention the fact that, if we had your mythical small government around when the recession kicked in, the entire US financial industry would have collapsed, unemployment would have skyrocketed and you'd have had a second Great Depression.

A government that only keeps up the outmost basic laws hardly gets the chance to fail.

But it can still fail. Not to mention that it hardly gets the chance to succeed, either.

[Self--Esteem]

All those years of slowly developing the state to serve the people the best they can, to just abolish it?

No thanks.

If it were only true. Sadly the state has developed into a vehicle that can be used to serve the corporate interest of a few rather than the people as a whole.

Minimal government is a necessary evil, large government is just an unnecessary evil that hinders it's it inhabitants more than it helps them.

Let's try this again.

Small government can be as bad or worse than big government. The size of government is not the issue, it's the quality of government. A government that is not accountable to its people, that does not serve the people's interests is a bad government. A government that is accountable and does serve the people's interests is a good government. Size is irrelevant.

Size is absolutely not irrelevant. Small governments do not/can not come up with such bad decisions as the housing bubble, bailouts of doomed to fail companies,the integration of new laws that do not make any sense, etc. etc.

Ha ha ha...

No.

Sorry, darling. State infallibility is not inversely proportional to size.

You obviously do not know anything about small/minimal governments, then. A small government, as described by many Libertarians, does not even have the power to bailout companies or regulate.

But it still has the power to screw up - badly. Unless you're calling for outright anarchism, even a small government will be introducing legislation and caring for defence. They are still liable to mistakes and errors, just as much as a large government. Not to mention the fact that, if we had your mythical small government around when the recession kicked in, the entire US financial industry would have collapsed, unemployment would have skyrocketed and you'd have had a second Great Depression.

A government that only keeps up the outmost basic laws hardly gets the chance to fail.

But it can still fail. Not to mention that it hardly gets the chance to succeed, either.

You do not need a full fledged legislation if all laws are underlaid before. The reason why countries like the US or Germany are having such a need for legislation is that both countries were founded in a time when people were still ignorant on many matters. Legislation can be reduced by 90% if the laws were truly written for the people, instead of against them.

Also. Can you prove that the whole economy would have collapsed, if it was not for government regulation? More so. Can you prove that it would have happened if it was not for the housing bubble created by government policy?

[North Suran]

All those years of slowly developing the state to serve the people the best they can, to just abolish it?

No thanks.

If it were only true. Sadly the state has developed into a vehicle that can be used to serve the corporate interest of a few rather than the people as a whole.

Minimal government is a necessary evil, large government is just an unnecessary evil that hinders it's it inhabitants more than it helps them.

Let's try this again.

Small government can be as bad or worse than big government. The size of government is not the issue, it's the quality of government. A government that is not accountable to its people, that does not serve the people's interests is a bad government. A government that is accountable and does serve the people's interests is a good government. Size is irrelevant.

Size is absolutely not irrelevant. Small governments do not/can not come up with such bad decisions as the housing bubble, bailouts of doomed to fail companies,the integration of new laws that do not make any sense, etc. etc.

Ha ha ha...

No.

Sorry, darling. State infallibility is not inversely proportional to size.

You obviously do not know anything about small/minimal governments, then. A small government, as described by many Libertarians, does not even have the power to bailout companies or regulate.

But it still has the power to screw up - badly. Unless you're calling for outright anarchism, even a small government will be introducing legislation and caring for defence. They are still liable to mistakes and errors, just as much as a large government. Not to mention the fact that, if we had your mythical small government around when the recession kicked in, the entire US financial industry would have collapsed, unemployment would have skyrocketed and you'd have had a second Great Depression.

A government that only keeps up the outmost basic laws hardly gets the chance to fail.

But it can still fail. Not to mention that it hardly gets the chance to succeed, either.

You do not need a full fledged legislation if all laws are underlaid before. The reason why countries like the US or Germany are having such a need for legislation is that both countries were founded in a time when people were still ignorant on many matters. Legislation can be reduced by 90% if the laws were truly written for the people, instead of against them.

Do small governments also possess the power of clairvoyance? Because that is the only explanation I can find for your claim that the legislative branch will somehow be able to write laws that will cover any and all possible issues which may or may not arise in the future.

Also. Can you prove that the whole economy would have collapsed, if it was not for government regulation?

Government intervention, not regulation. You want proof? Try a majority of the 1930s. The reason why the Great Depression was so severe was because, due to the laissez-faire nature of the government, the entire financial sector was allowed to collapse. This had a severe knock-on effect on the rest of the economy. The rest, as they say, is history. Of course, this doesn't stop people - not even a century later - complaining about the governmenting supporting large financial institutions. If anything, this recession has further proved the need for a large government.

More so. Can you prove that it would have happened if it was not for the housing bubble created by government policy?

Economic bubbles come about due to a lack of regulation, not an excess of regulation. You can jab fingers about whose to blame for causing the recession. When it all comes down to it, if it wasn't for State intervention, this recession would have been a Helluva lot worse.

[Caninope]

Let's try this again.

Small government can be as bad or worse than big government. The size of government is not the issue, it's the quality of government. A government that is not accountable to its people, that does not serve the people's interests is a bad government. A government that is accountable and does serve the people's interests is a good government. Size is irrelevant.

You will be hard pressed to find a government that works only for the good of it's people. I think overall a nation can run more efficiently under a smaller government with less restrictions than a large government.

Efficient does not equal beneficial.

The US healthcare system is efficient. It also leaves over 30 million US citizens without health coverage.

A lot fo them choosing too- they can afford it instead of other luxuries. Besides, many of those who go without it really don't need it, seeing how the majority are young (20's-30's).

To make it cheaper, eliminate the restrictions across state lines, get rid of the oligarchy, and remove pre-existing conditions.

[North Suran]

Efficient does not equal beneficial.

The US healthcare system is efficient. It also leaves over 30 million US citizens without health coverage.

A lot fo them choosing too- they can afford it instead of other luxuries.

Like food.

Besides, many of those who go without it really don't need it, seeing how the majority are young (20's-30's).

Young people are immune to illness?

To make it cheaper, eliminate the restrictions across state lines, get rid of the oligarchy, and remove pre-existing conditions.

Or, just subsidise it so that people can actually afford it.

[Self--Esteem]

All those years of slowly developing the state to serve the people the best they can, to just abolish it?

No thanks.

If it were only true. Sadly the state has developed into a vehicle that can be used to serve the corporate interest of a few rather than the people as a whole.

Minimal government is a necessary evil, large government is just an unnecessary evil that hinders it's it inhabitants more than it helps them.

Let's try this again.

Small government can be as bad or worse than big government. The size of government is not the issue, it's the quality of government. A government that is not accountable to its people, that does not serve the people's interests is a bad government. A government that is accountable and does serve the people's interests is a good government. Size is irrelevant.

Size is absolutely not irrelevant. Small governments do not/can not come up with such bad decisions as the housing bubble, bailouts of doomed to fail companies,the integration of new laws that do not make any sense, etc. etc.

Ha ha ha...

No.

Sorry, darling. State infallibility is not inversely proportional to size.

You obviously do not know anything about small/minimal governments, then. A small government, as described by many Libertarians, does not even have the power to bailout companies or regulate.

But it still has the power to screw up - badly. Unless you're calling for outright anarchism, even a small government will be introducing legislation and caring for defence. They are still liable to mistakes and errors, just as much as a large government. Not to mention the fact that, if we had your mythical small government around when the recession kicked in, the entire US financial industry would have collapsed, unemployment would have skyrocketed and you'd have had a second Great Depression.

A government that only keeps up the outmost basic laws hardly gets the chance to fail.

But it can still fail. Not to mention that it hardly gets the chance to succeed, either.

You do not need a full fledged legislation if all laws are underlaid before. The reason why countries like the US or Germany are having such a need for legislation is that both countries were founded in a time when people were still ignorant on many matters. Legislation can be reduced by 90% if the laws were truly written for the people, instead of against them.

Do small governments also possess the power of clairvoyance? Because that is the only explanation I can find for your claim that the legislative branch will somehow be able to write laws that will cover any and all possible issues which may or may not arise in the future.

Also. Can you prove that the whole economy would have collapsed, if it was not for government regulation?

Government intervention, not regulation. You want proof? Try a majority of the 1930s. The reason why the Great Depression was so severe was because, due to the laissez-faire nature of the government, the entire financial sector was allowed to collapse. This had a severe knock-on effect on the rest of the economy. The rest, as they say, is history. Of course, this doesn't stop people - not even a century later - complaining about the governmenting supporting large financial institutions. If anything, this recession has further proved the need for a large government.

More so. Can you prove that it would have happened if it was not for the housing bubble created by government policy?

Economic bubbles come about due to a lack of regulation, not an excess of regulation. You can jab fingers about whose to blame for causing the recession. When it all comes down to it, if it wasn't for State intervention, this recession would have been a Helluva lot worse.

It really is not rocket science. The government integrates the most basic laws (anti-racism/anti-violence/etc.) and the judical body simply keeps to those rules. You do not need any additional rule sets if all you are prohibited from is violent action.

As for the 1930s. Neither Hoover nor FDR were Laissez-Faire. They both believed in regulation and FDR's New Deal was about to regulate America to it's death, if it hasn't been for WWII that he slightly changed his stance.

If it was not for the state, this recession most likely would not have happened, at all.

[Self--Esteem]

Efficient does not equal beneficial.

The US healthcare system is efficient. It also leaves over 30 million US citizens without health coverage.

A lot fo them choosing too- they can afford it instead of other luxuries.

Like food.

Besides, many of those who go without it really don't need it, seeing how the majority are young (20's-30's).

Young people are immune to illness?

To make it cheaper, eliminate the restrictions across state lines, get rid of the oligarchy, and remove pre-existing conditions.

Or, just subsidise it so that people can actually afford it.

Subsidizing is kind of the universal cure for all you mixed economy believers, eh? You do not need to subsidize it when the prices would decrease naturally, just by getting rid of restrictions.

[North Suran]

All those years of slowly developing the state to serve the people the best they can, to just abolish it?

No thanks.

If it were only true. Sadly the state has developed into a vehicle that can be used to serve the corporate interest of a few rather than the people as a whole.

Minimal government is a necessary evil, large government is just an unnecessary evil that hinders it's it inhabitants more than it helps them.

Let's try this again.

Small government can be as bad or worse than big government. The size of government is not the issue, it's the quality of government. A government that is not accountable to its people, that does not serve the people's interests is a bad government. A government that is accountable and does serve the people's interests is a good government. Size is irrelevant.

Size is absolutely not irrelevant. Small governments do not/can not come up with such bad decisions as the housing bubble, bailouts of doomed to fail companies,the integration of new laws that do not make any sense, etc. etc.

Ha ha ha...

No.

Sorry, darling. State infallibility is not inversely proportional to size.

You obviously do not know anything about small/minimal governments, then. A small government, as described by many Libertarians, does not even have the power to bailout companies or regulate.

But it still has the power to screw up - badly. Unless you're calling for outright anarchism, even a small government will be introducing legislation and caring for defence. They are still liable to mistakes and errors, just as much as a large government. Not to mention the fact that, if we had your mythical small government around when the recession kicked in, the entire US financial industry would have collapsed, unemployment would have skyrocketed and you'd have had a second Great Depression.

A government that only keeps up the outmost basic laws hardly gets the chance to fail.

But it can still fail. Not to mention that it hardly gets the chance to succeed, either.

You do not need a full fledged legislation if all laws are underlaid before. The reason why countries like the US or Germany are having such a need for legislation is that both countries were founded in a time when people were still ignorant on many matters. Legislation can be reduced by 90% if the laws were truly written for the people, instead of against them.

Do small governments also possess the power of clairvoyance? Because that is the only explanation I can find for your claim that the legislative branch will somehow be able to write laws that will cover any and all possible issues which may or may not arise in the future.

Also. Can you prove that the whole economy would have collapsed, if it was not for government regulation?

Government intervention, not regulation. You want proof? Try a majority of the 1930s. The reason why the Great Depression was so severe was because, due to the laissez-faire nature of the government, the entire financial sector was allowed to collapse. This had a severe knock-on effect on the rest of the economy. The rest, as they say, is history. Of course, this doesn't stop people - not even a century later - complaining about the governmenting supporting large financial institutions. If anything, this recession has further proved the need for a large government.

More so. Can you prove that it would have happened if it was not for the housing bubble created by government policy?

Economic bubbles come about due to a lack of regulation, not an excess of regulation. You can jab fingers about whose to blame for causing the recession. When it all comes down to it, if it wasn't for State intervention, this recession would have been a Helluva lot worse.

It really is not rocket science. The government integrates the most basic laws (anti-racism/anti-violence/etc.) and the judical body simply keeps to those rules. You do not need any additional rule sets if all you are prohibited from is violent action.

You fail to take into account changing morality and social norms.

If we were to follow your approach, homosexuals would still be getting stoned to death, women would still be the personal possessions of their partners, slavery would still be in effect, and so on and so forth. Legislation needs to be flexible and be able to respond to these changes. Otherwise, it will soon become obsolete.

As for the 1930s. Neither Hoover nor FDR were Laissez-Faire.

A quote from Andrew W. Mellon, Hoover's Secretary of the Treasury:

"liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate farmers, liquidate real estate… it will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up from less competent people."

Doesn't sound like he was all too keen on State intervention to prop up the financial institutions. In fact, sounds to me like he fitted the term "laissez-faire" to a tee. The result? The worst recession of the 20th century.

Compare and contrast with FDR, whose New Deal is widely credited with finally pulling the USA out of the Depression.

They both believed in regulation and FDR's New Deal was about to regulate America to it's death, if it hasn't been for WWII that he slightly changed his stance.

If it was not for the state, this recession most likely would not have happened, at all.

Classic free market logic. Blame the State for the recession while criticising all the actions they took to prevent total economic meltdown, while desperately ignoring the giant, white elephant in the room that is the actions of the private firms and individuals.

[North Suran]

Efficient does not equal beneficial.

The US healthcare system is efficient. It also leaves over 30 million US citizens without health coverage.

A lot fo them choosing too- they can afford it instead of other luxuries.

Like food.

Besides, many of those who go without it really don't need it, seeing how the majority are young (20's-30's).

Young people are immune to illness?

To make it cheaper, eliminate the restrictions across state lines, get rid of the oligarchy, and remove pre-existing conditions.

Or, just subsidise it so that people can actually afford it.

Subsidizing is kind of the universal cure for all you mixed economy believers, eh?

This coming from a free market capitalist? Your economic theory's answer to every issue is "Market forces are infallible".

[Self--Esteem]

All those years of slowly developing the state to serve the people the best they can, to just abolish it?

No thanks.

If it were only true. Sadly the state has developed into a vehicle that can be used to serve the corporate interest of a few rather than the people as a whole.

Minimal government is a necessary evil, large government is just an unnecessary evil that hinders it's it inhabitants more than it helps them.

Let's try this again.

Small government can be as bad or worse than big government. The size of government is not the issue, it's the quality of government. A government that is not accountable to its people, that does not serve the people's interests is a bad government. A government that is accountable and does serve the people's interests is a good government. Size is irrelevant.

Size is absolutely not irrelevant. Small governments do not/can not come up with such bad decisions as the housing bubble, bailouts of doomed to fail companies,the integration of new laws that do not make any sense, etc. etc.

Ha ha ha...

No.

Sorry, darling. State infallibility is not inversely proportional to size.

You obviously do not know anything about small/minimal governments, then. A small government, as described by many Libertarians, does not even have the power to bailout companies or regulate.

But it still has the power to screw up - badly. Unless you're calling for outright anarchism, even a small government will be introducing legislation and caring for defence. They are still liable to mistakes and errors, just as much as a large government. Not to mention the fact that, if we had your mythical small government around when the recession kicked in, the entire US financial industry would have collapsed, unemployment would have skyrocketed and you'd have had a second Great Depression.

A government that only keeps up the outmost basic laws hardly gets the chance to fail.

But it can still fail. Not to mention that it hardly gets the chance to succeed, either.

You do not need a full fledged legislation if all laws are underlaid before. The reason why countries like the US or Germany are having such a need for legislation is that both countries were founded in a time when people were still ignorant on many matters. Legislation can be reduced by 90% if the laws were truly written for the people, instead of against them.

Do small governments also possess the power of clairvoyance? Because that is the only explanation I can find for your claim that the legislative branch will somehow be able to write laws that will cover any and all possible issues which may or may not arise in the future.

Also. Can you prove that the whole economy would have collapsed, if it was not for government regulation?

Government intervention, not regulation. You want proof? Try a majority of the 1930s. The reason why the Great Depression was so severe was because, due to the laissez-faire nature of the government, the entire financial sector was allowed to collapse. This had a severe knock-on effect on the rest of the economy. The rest, as they say, is history. Of course, this doesn't stop people - not even a century later - complaining about the governmenting supporting large financial institutions. If anything, this recession has further proved the need for a large government.

More so. Can you prove that it would have happened if it was not for the housing bubble created by government policy?

Economic bubbles come about due to a lack of regulation, not an excess of regulation. You can jab fingers about whose to blame for causing the recession. When it all comes down to it, if it wasn't for State intervention, this recession would have been a Helluva lot worse.

It really is not rocket science. The government integrates the most basic laws (anti-racism/anti-violence/etc.) and the judical body simply keeps to those rules. You do not need any additional rule sets if all you are prohibited from is violent action.

You fail to take into account changing morality and social norms.

If we were to follow your approach, homosexuals would still be getting stoned to death, women would still be the personal possessions of their partners, slavery would still be in effect, and so on and so forth. Legislation needs to be flexible and be able to respond to these changes. Otherwise, it will soon become obsolete.

As for the 1930s. Neither Hoover nor FDR were Laissez-Faire.

A quote from Andrew W. Mellon, Hoover's Secretary of the Treasury:

"liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate farmers, liquidate real estate… it will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up from less competent people."

Doesn't sound like he was all too keen on State intervention to prop up the financial institutions. In fact, sounds to me like he fitted the term "laissez-faire" to a tee. The result? The worst recession of the 20th century.

Compare and contrast with FDR, whose New Deal is widely credited with finally pulling the USA out of the Depression.

They both believed in regulation and FDR's New Deal was about to regulate America to it's death, if it hasn't been for WWII that he slightly changed his stance.

If it was not for the state, this recession most likely would not have happened, at all.

Classic free market logic. Blame the State for the recession while criticising all the actions they took to prevent total economic meltdown, while desperately ignoring the giant, white elephant in the room that is the actions of the private firms and individuals.

No. If it was for my approach, there would be no oppressive rules to begin with.

As for Andrew. W. Mellon, he was not Hoover himself. Hoover was not in favour of Laissez-Faire, which is probably one of the reasons why Mr Mellon had to leave.

As for the state. The state tries to prevent the total economic meltdown, true. But you will not see any of those parasites listening before the market crashes. In fact, Austrian economists already forsaw the housing bubble. They forsaw the outcome but nobody listened. The US government bathed in their ignorance and stubbornness and only looked for solutions when it was almost too late.

A rather old but all too true saying "If you want to spend your money effectively, do it yourself. Do not let the government spend your money for you".

[Self--Esteem]

Efficient does not equal beneficial.

The US healthcare system is efficient. It also leaves over 30 million US citizens without health coverage.

A lot fo them choosing too- they can afford it instead of other luxuries.

Like food.

Besides, many of those who go without it really don't need it, seeing how the majority are young (20's-30's).

Young people are immune to illness?

To make it cheaper, eliminate the restrictions across state lines, get rid of the oligarchy, and remove pre-existing conditions.

Or, just subsidise it so that people can actually afford it.

Subsidizing is kind of the universal cure for all you mixed economy believers, eh?

This coming from a free market capitalist? Your economic theory's answer to every issue is "Market forces are infallible".

If you understood economy, you would agree with that.

Due to their very structure, market forces are far more effective than any government. You cannot demand perfect health care from a government. Let alone cheap and accurate one. The government structure along with all it's bureaucracy prevent it from becoming effective and productive.

As for the above. I really fail to see why subsidisation should be a necessity, when all you need to do is abolish those state border restrictions. A growing competition lets prices plummet.

[Jello Biafra]

tl; dr

I don't think freedom is any more than a means to an end. If freedom conflicts with those ends then it should be tailored to fit.

The state is the means to tailor freedom to allow it to perform its primary function

What ends are there without freedom?
Are they ends worth achieving?

Uhu. You enjoy your broken wasteland, I'll enjoy my order-enforcing, freedom ensured state.

There's no such thing as a freedom ensured state.

It is not the people verses the state, it is the Powerful Few v.s the Weak Many. That powerful few CAN be the state, but can just as often be a oligarchal elite bussiness class that controls such and obscene amout of the capital that they can do just about whatever they want. That, my fellow humans, is when another force steps in with the power to assist the Weak Many. This can be bussniess if the State is the Powerful Few, or the State if Bussniess is the powerful few

Why do you assume that the other force would assist the Weak Many, rather than aligning with the Powerful Few? Indeed, this is what has happened.

[Jello Biafra]

Freedom can only be taken
It cannot be "Granted"

Yes, it can.

Absent from "Stronger" individuals, people are free. it's the outside influence that strips individuals of their rights
The act of being "Weaker" does not "forfeit" ones "Freedom" rather it proves the need for a system (Government) that protects weaker individuals from Greedy individuals.

This however is not a "Right" to exist, but rather a desire by individuals to be safe from harm.

Freedom and rights are two different things.

You obviously do not know anything about small/minimal governments, then. A small government, as described by many Libertarians, does not even have the power to bailout companies or regulate.

Which makes one wonder if it has the power to protect rights at all.