NationStates Jolt Archive


Gov. Co. Better Bigger or Smaller?

Wilgrove
02-06-2007, 04:05
Started on another thread, decide to give it's own thread.

Not gonna get into it on this thread, but the short answer is that much as he might like to think he could force through radical change if he were elected, there are too many people arrayed against him. That's the nature of our system, for good or bad. In this limited case, I think for the good. I happen to like big government, and think it ought to be bigger, in fact.

my response:

Oh please, no good can come out of 'big government'. Big government will only encourage higher taxes, more control over the private sector as well as the lives of our private citizen, and you'd basically be living in a Nanny State. You'll be living in government approved apartments, in government approved apartment complex, eating and drinking government approved food and drinks, riding on government approved public transportation, to our government approved jobs. On our time off, we'd be doing government approved recreation which is probably going to be soccer, or some lame sport or activity.

If you want to do anything that isn't government approved, you'll be taxed to death. Sure you'll be taken care of, but at the cost of your personal freedom.

If you think the Republican's Ban on Gay Marriage is bad, just wait till 'Gov Co' tries it with every other aspect of life. There's a reason George Orwell wrote '1984.'

They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security ~Benjamin Franklin

I'm sorry but I don't share your vision of 'big government'. Big Government is the worst idea anyone could EVER come up with and I'd rather have to the freedom to choose whatever I want to do with my life rather than having 'Gov Co.' tell me what to do with my life.

So what do you guys think, should Government be bigger or smaller in it's power and size?
Desperate Measures
02-06-2007, 04:10
I think that if there were really checks and balances within the American Government, then Big Government wouldn't be bad within America. I really can't speak for any other government as I'm trying to figure out my own.
Wilgrove
02-06-2007, 04:11
I think that if there were really checks and balances within the American Government, then Big Government wouldn't be bad within America. I really can't speak for any other government as I'm trying to figure out my own.

Yes but the bigger the government, the more control it has over the lives of its citizens, the more that corruption and scandals will affect our lives and not in a good way either.
Desperate Measures
02-06-2007, 04:21
Yes but the bigger the government, the more control it has over the lives of its citizens, the more that corruption and scandals will affect our lives and not in a good way either.

I'm sorry for bringing this to basic terms, I've had a few, you see. But this is exactly where the idealist and the realist clash. Too much of one and you still get a big brother government. I side with the idealists because the hope is you'll get an idealist with a realistic point of view.


Did that make sense? Probably not.
The Nazz
02-06-2007, 04:33
Yes but the bigger the government, the more control it has over the lives of its citizens, the more that corruption and scandals will affect our lives and not in a good way either.

Not necessarily. When I'm talking about big government, I'm talking about a safety net for the poorest and weakest individuals. I'm talking about a nationalized electrical power grid, not the mishmash of private interests that don't keep it up because there's no profit in it. I'm talking about National Health Insurance that covers everyone at some level, and that could be supplemented with a private program. But that doesn't equate to government interfering in your private life.

More importantly, I'm talking about effective border security and food safety. I'm talking about safe roads and pollution control. I'm talking about making sure that our water is clean and our drugs are safe. That doesn't happen without big government.

I think there are few places in the world that respect individual freedoms more than in western Europe--they have a greater respect for it than we do in the US--and their governments are huge in comparison to ours. We need to get the government we pay for.
Wilgrove
02-06-2007, 04:47
Not necessarily. When I'm talking about big government, I'm talking about a safety net for the poorest and weakest individuals. I'm talking about a nationalized electrical power grid, not the mishmash of private interests that don't keep it up because there's no profit in it.

My house runs on private electricity, Duke Energy and so far it has provided far more reliable service than Concord Power Supply. One time both private and public power had black outs, guess who got their powers running first, Duke.

I'm talking about National Health Insurance that covers everyone at some level, and that could be supplemented with a private program. But that doesn't equate to government interfering in your private life.

True, and the way things are going we'd probably going to have NHI anyways, Medicare and Medicaids already covers 61%. However I would like to see what would happen if we actually open up the market to private insurers that people can sign on, have a true competitive market for Health Insurance.

More importantly, I'm talking about effective border security and food safety. I'm talking about safe roads and pollution control. I'm talking about making sure that our water is clean and our drugs are safe. That doesn't happen without big government.

Now Government should provide for roads and border security, those are the things that the private sector cannot provide efficiently for. However, eh I wouldn't count on Gov. Co. for food safety and pollution control. Remember the E-colli outbreak and how the FDA had to pull several drugs off the market over the past few years? the FDA seems to be severely lacking and it's a government agency. As for water, well once again, my water comes from the well. I know it's safe because every six month I check the filter and clean it out when needed. I don't have to rely on Government's water, and since it's well water, I'm not bound by restriction when the area has droughts.

I think there are few places in the world that respect individual freedoms more than in western Europe--they have a greater respect for it than we do in the US--and their governments are huge in comparison to ours. We need to get the government we pay for.

The government I pay for is too big, I want my government smaller and since I pay for it as much as you do (probably more since I don't get that many tax breaks) I demand a smaller government.
Dobbsworld
02-06-2007, 04:54
If you want to do anything that isn't government approved, you'll be taxed to death. Sure you'll be taken care of, but at the cost of your personal freedom.


*points and laughs*
Layarteb
02-06-2007, 04:55
No good can come to a free society with a big government. Give me the old Republican principles of little government, not this nonsensical neoconservative, interfere-with-everything-you-do nonsense.
Posi
02-06-2007, 05:22
Both at the same time.
IL Ruffino
02-06-2007, 05:30
Both at the same time.

Are you suggesting anarchy?
Kyronea
02-06-2007, 05:51
I think focusing on either big government or small government misses the clearer picture, not to mention we have no set definition of what a big government or a small government is. Just making the government larger or smaller for the sake of being larger or smaller would also miss the point.

Instead, I favour an efficient government, where size is irrlevant. Efficiency should be the goal...smooth out government processes and eliminate a lot of the excess waste that comes from overly redundent departments, wasteful ventures like the War on Drugs, and so on and so forth.

Now, the government may become smaller as a result, but it might not. It could be that by making certain departments more efficent, say, Education, we might make the government a whole lot bigger. The point is, the size doesn't matter: it's how well it's used.
Bald Anarchists
02-06-2007, 07:23
That government is best which governs least. That government is even better that governs not at all!
Bald Anarchists
02-06-2007, 07:24
That doesn't happen without big government.

Nonsense.
Kyronea
02-06-2007, 07:43
That government is best which governs least. That government is even better that governs not at all!

In any society without laws or governing structure, a government will eventually arise out of instinct and man's lust for power. Oftentimes this government will be far worse than any government that may have preceded it.
The Nazz
02-06-2007, 07:47
In any society without laws or governing structure, a government will eventually arise out of instinct and man's lust for power. Oftentimes this government will be far worse than any government that may have preceded it.

Often times? I'd say every time, unless you happen to be the person at the top of the pyramid. If you're not that guy, then you're fucked.
Kyronea
02-06-2007, 07:52
Often times? I'd say every time, unless you happen to be the person at the top of the pyramid. If you're not that guy, then you're fucked.

...

I am not entirely certain, but then I have never witnessed any such event. You are, however, probably correct.

The point is, things will be worse, both in terms of how the government is set up, how it governs, and what rights people have in the nation--usually none at all.
Anti-Social Darwinism
02-06-2007, 09:44
Started on another thread, decide to give it's own thread.



my response:

Oh please, no good can come out of 'big government'. Big government will only encourage higher taxes, more control over the private sector as well as the lives of our private citizen, and you'd basically be living in a Nanny State. You'll be living in government approved apartments, in government approved apartment complex, eating and drinking government approved food and drinks, riding on government approved public transportation, to our government approved jobs. On our time off, we'd be doing government approved recreation which is probably going to be soccer, or some lame sport or activity.

If you want to do anything that isn't government approved, you'll be taxed to death. Sure you'll be taken care of, but at the cost of your personal freedom.

If you think the Republican's Ban on Gay Marriage is bad, just wait till 'Gov Co' tries it with every other aspect of life. There's a reason George Orwell wrote '1984.'



I'm sorry but I don't share your vision of 'big government'. Big Government is the worst idea anyone could EVER come up with and I'd rather have to the freedom to choose whatever I want to do with my life rather than having 'Gov Co.' tell me what to do with my life.

So what do you guys think, should Government be bigger or smaller in it's power and size?

I have to go with the Founding Fathers, specifically Thomas Jefferson, when he said "That government which governs least, governs best."
The Nazz
02-06-2007, 09:56
I have to go with the Founding Fathers, specifically Thomas Jefferson, when he said "That government which governs least, governs best."

He was also living in a largely agrarian society. Somehow I think he'd have a much different point of view today.
The Lone Alliance
02-06-2007, 10:10
Oh please, no good can come out of 'big government'. Big government will only encourage higher taxes,
We're going to have it anyway once the bill for Iraq comes in.

more control over the private sector Good because quite frankly it's an out of control monster.

as well as the lives of our private citizen, and you'd basically be living in a Nanny State. You'll be living in government approved apartments, in government approved apartment complex, eating and drinking government approved food and drinks, riding on government approved public transportation, to our government approved jobs. On our time off, we'd be doing government approved recreation which is probably going to be soccer, or some lame sport or activity.

I love how you morons think that Big Government= Big Brother.

You seem to think that Big Government automaticly means that they are to interfere with your personal life.

Personally society needs a safety net, as much as your kind would love to support poor people starving to death in the street for 'social darwinism' I have a little more humanity

You need a mix if you like it or not. You get rid of Government or give government up to the private you'll simply have a Serfdom instead. With Business being the Nobles. This government is already a 'Government for Hire" a business can pay them to do whatever, I'm dead set against it.
Anti-Social Darwinism
02-06-2007, 10:35
He was also living in a largely agrarian society. Somehow I think he'd have a much different point of view today.

Granted. He also viewed the ideal future for the United States as agrarian. I think he would be appalled at what we've become (based on his stated bias), but I also think that he would still favor a government as small and as restricted as the conditions would allow.
The Nazz
02-06-2007, 10:40
Good because quite frankly it's an out of control monster.

You'd think the recent stories about Chinese companies exporting poisonous goods would make people think twice about unregulated capitalism, but somehow it doesn't. First it was poisoned pet food, and now it's poisoned toothpaste (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/02/us/02toothpaste.html?hp). You don't get government regulation without government, and without government regulation, you get Upton Sinclair's The Jungle. I prefer my food as shit free as possible.
The Nazz
02-06-2007, 10:46
Granted. He also viewed the ideal future for the United States as agrarian. I think he would be appalled at what we've become (based on his stated bias), but I also think that he would still favor a government as small and as restricted as the conditions would allow.
I don't know--Jefferson wasn't a Luddite, after all. He was an inventor and an appreciator of science as well, and I think he'd have been wowed by the technological achievements we've made in the 20th and 21st centuries.

As for me, I'm in favor of big government in the sense that I want the government to have an active hand in a lot of pies, most especially regulation, but I want it to be efficient as well, and I don't think that has to be a contradiction in terms. There's this myth that the market is always more efficient than any government system, but it's only true part of the time. There are places the market is more efficient, many of them, but the market can't be trusted to regulate itself, and that's where government comes in.
Demented Hamsters
02-06-2007, 12:24
My house runs on private electricity, Duke Energy and so far it has provided far more reliable service than Concord Power Supply. One time both private and public power had black outs, guess who got their powers running first, Duke.
Back in NZ, my power company was a public trust that gave its profits back to its customers. Xmas time, I could expect basically a months free power from their payout and, as well, something similar 1/2 through the year (once the payout was enough for me to have free power for 2 months).
However the govt, in it's wisdom, decided that these sort of companies were inefficient and a burden on the customer. Much better to split them up, force them to be sold to private companies who would - naturally:rolleyes: - be much more efficient in their running of the power business.
result?
within 6 months, I was paying nigh-on twice as much for my power under this new 'efficient' private company as I was previously under the bad old inefficient public trust company. Also I wasn't getting the two months free power a year from the payout. All those profits were now going to the shareholders and managers. Which meant of course I was really paying over twice as much over the course of the year for the privilege of having been forced to use a private power company.
yay private power companies. They so great at providing cheap power efficiently.
Now Government should provide for roads and border security, those are the things that the private sector cannot provide efficiently for. However, eh I wouldn't count on Gov. Co. for food safety and pollution control. Remember the E-colli outbreak and how the FDA had to pull several drugs off the market over the past few years? the FDA seems to be severely lacking and it's a government agency.
So let's get this right: Because the FDA doesn't get enough funding to do their job, this proves that they shouldn't get any funding and we should rely on the altruistic nature of big business to safe guard us from the shoddy dangerous food products that the FDA has been stopping up til now.
Thus:
Big business releases dangerous drugs. FDA doesn't have the money to test them properly and then has to recall them.
Wilgrove's solution?
Get rid of the FDA and trust that Big Business doesn't release dangerous drugs again.
yeah.
That's a real logical conclusion.

here's another idea: Why not give the FDA enough funding to be able to fully and properly check products coming onto the market. Except it does mean - OMG! - more govt!
As for water, well once again, my water comes from the well. I know it's safe because every six month I check the filter and clean it out when needed. I don't have to rely on Government's water, and since it's well water, I'm not bound by restriction when the area has droughts.
oh how noble-minded of you. Because you get your water from a well, therefore no-one in the entire USA deserves to have safe drinking water provided for by the govt.
I applaud you sir on your public spirit.
clap
clap
clap
Jello Biafra
02-06-2007, 18:41
Generally speaking, big government is better; preferably big enough to include everyone.
The Nazz elucidated most of the reasons why.

The point is, the size doesn't matter: it's how well it's used.<Giggle.>
Soheran
02-06-2007, 19:09
Government has from the start been the defender and legitimizer of privilege and power.

Whether in the form of direct state intervention, or in the depradations of allegedly "private" institutions whose power is founded in the state's coercive force, its interference in our lives should be contested.
Hydesland
02-06-2007, 19:15
Smaller government for me. It's been shown many times that more government control = weaker economy although the ideal wouldn't be the case. I might debate this if I can be bothered.
New Granada
02-06-2007, 19:17
The best places in the world to live have big governments.

The worst places have minimal government.

Republican voodoo-economics and know-nothing conservative bullshit fantasies are all that contradicts this.
Hydesland
02-06-2007, 19:35
The best places in the world to live have big governments.

The worst places have minimal government.

Republican voodoo-economics and know-nothing conservative bullshit fantasies are all that contradicts this.

Actually the "best" countries you are probably refering to (sweden etc...) are good because they have small governments socially, i.e. less interference in human rights. While they may have big governments ecenomically, generally countries with smaller governments tend to have a stronger economy which usually raises quality of life.
The Nazz
02-06-2007, 19:37
Government has from the start been the defender and legitimizer of privilege and power.

Whether in the form of direct state intervention, or in the depradations of allegedly "private" institutions whose power is founded in the state's coercive force, its interference in our lives should be contested.

When it's done right, big government protects the individual from the depredations of the powerful. Ideally, the government ought to be the buffer between the individual and the corporation, and protector of individual liberties.
Soheran
02-06-2007, 19:47
When it's done right, big government protects the individual from the depredations of the powerful.

The government is what makes them powerful in the first place, generally.

Ideally, the government ought to be the buffer between the individual and the corporation,

The corporation is a creature of government. Its very existence is purely a legal construct.

Government restraint of its own creations should indeed be supported, in some cases, but that is hardly an argument for big government, which brought us the depradations of corporate power in the first place.

and protector of individual liberties.

From whom?

Individual liberties are always most under threat from the people with enough means of violence to strike at them with impunity... and that is the government.
Hydesland
02-06-2007, 19:51
Individual liberties are always most under threat from the people with enough means of violence to strike at them with impunity... and that is the government.

But if you take away the government, the biggest threat is basically from mob millitas or other organizations that are more likely to treat people as a means to an end. Although i'm generally against government intervention, it should at least try to limit how hard organizations step on other peoples backs to gain power. Without government there is no limit.
Soheran
02-06-2007, 19:52
But if you take away the government, the biggest threat is basically from mob millitas or other organizations that are more likely to treat people as a means to an end.

Why "more"?
Hydesland
02-06-2007, 19:54
Why "more"?

Because democratic governments need to look out more so for the peoples sake, since there power depends on their vote. However, companies/millitas/mobs or whatever don't need to rely on voting to gain power.
The Nazz
02-06-2007, 19:55
Individual liberties are always most under threat from the people with enough means of violence to strike at them with impunity... and that is the government.Look--that's why I said "when it's done right." It rarely is, though it seems some western European countries have managed to get the balance more toward individual liberty than most. But when it comes to having my individual liberties threatened, I'm way more worried about private enterprise and the very wealthy than I ever am about my government. My government has--theoretically--constraints placed upon it by the people. Corporations don't. There is no corporate version of the First Amendment freedom of speech. That's what I'm talking about.
Soheran
02-06-2007, 19:56
However, companies/millitas/mobs or whatever don't need to rely on voting to gain power.

You're assuming that these "companies/militias/mobs" won't be under democratic control.

Why not? Especially in conditions where relative equality in the means of violence means that any such institution is going to have a hard time gaining power without popular consent.
Hydesland
02-06-2007, 20:05
You're assuming that these "companies/militias/mobs" won't be under democratic control.

Why not? Especially in conditions where relative equality in the means of violence means that any such institution is going to have a hard time gaining power without popular consent.

Well, the most important factor that makes institutions powerful is the number of people it controls. And i'm a "humans will persue their own ends over other peoples ends generally" type of person. So basically, the most powerful institutions are the ones who can ensure the most wealth to it's members, and since the best way to get richer is to destroy competition etc... This sort of thing happened under Sicily, with the emergence of the mafia.
Soheran
02-06-2007, 20:07
when it comes to having my individual liberties threatened, I'm way more worried about private enterprise and the very wealthy than I ever am about my government.

This is not an either/or question.

I'm worried about private enterprise and the very wealthy threatening my individual liberties, too... and for precisely that reason I am worried about my government threatening my individual liberties.

State power is the foundation of concentrated wealth and the potential for abuse and exploitation that accompanies it, and has always been.
Soheran
02-06-2007, 20:13
and since the best way to get richer is to destroy competition

Unless the competition is just as powerful as you are.

Equality is the key to anarchy. That, and organization, because otherwise the organized coercive power of the few can still be a threat to the unorganized coercive power of the many.
Hydesland
02-06-2007, 20:15
Unless the competition is just as powerful as you are.

Equality is the key to anarchy. That, and organization, because otherwise the organized coercive power of the few can still be a threat to the unorganized coercive power of the many.

So this organization of the many, isn't that still like... a government?
Free Soviets
02-06-2007, 21:04
So this organization of the many, isn't that still like... a government?

perhaps, but unlike any of the organizations that style themselves such now.
Soheran
02-06-2007, 21:10
So this organization of the many, isn't that still like... a government?

But if you take away the government, the biggest threat is basically from mob millitas or other organizations that are more likely to treat people as a means to an end.

If it is indeed a government, are not your "mob millitas and other organizations" governments as well?
Impedance
02-06-2007, 21:10
I agree with the anti-government crowd up to a point: Government does have varying degrees of corruption which needs to be stamped out, and in most cases it could be made more efficient.

The underlying cause of both these problems is not the structure of government, neither is it politics per se. It is the immense power of unelected officials - the civil service. They don't have to respond to political pressures (they are in fact protected from politics). They don't get fired whenever the ruling party changes after an election - they might be shuffled about, but they rarely lose employment. They also get a proper index linked pension scheme - just about the only secure form of pensions there is these days is the civil service pension.

Because they can act with impunity (or at least they think they can), they spend their entire time building their little empires within government rank and file. This is a major source of corruption. Also, because they are at loathe to fire anyone, it is very difficult to get any kind of efficiency reform passed which might involve reducing the size of the civil service.

So a good start towards making government less corrupt and more efficient would be to fire the entire civil service and start again - and make sure they don't keep their jobs for too long so as to prevent mini empire building.

But anyway, I take issue with the hardcore anti-government fanatics who seem to think that: A. Any and all taxation is bad and even immoral. B. Any and all government regulation is excessive and un-necessary. C. The government mustn't do anything good, because then people might not realise that government is bad.

I'm sorry to break this bit of news to you, but there are some things that we need government to do, these things tend to cost money, and government spending must ultimately be paid for by taxation.

For example, even the extreme right wing of the republican party agrees that the government should finance the military - especially if military spending involves buying lots of heavy weaponry from their defence contractors.

But what else do we need the government to do? Well, to name a few, we need the police force, the fire and rescue service, the coastguard, the border patrol, the paramedic service - need I continue? You can't privatise all of these I'm afraid. Apart from the fact that none of these services can possibly be profit making without incurring vast corruption and / or cuts in the quality of service, would you really want to trust the private sector to run the police force or the fire service?

Ok, so maybe some of the free-market fanatics out there actually would trust the private sector to run all this stuff - but they really are bonkers, so it's probably safer to ignore them.

I would actually go further in the other direction and extend government control to vital utilities as well - namely water, gas and electricity. At the moment, water supply is still in government hands in most parts of the USA.

But water was privatised in the UK about a decade ago - and guess what happened? Prices jumped by about 300%, the system literally bled dry in some places due to lack of maintenance, and we ended up with "hosepipe bans". In England, FFS. Hardly a country with a shortage of rainfall.

Privatisation and deregulation of electricity supply was tried in California a few years back, and guess what happened? Prices jumped by several hundred percent, and in some cases up to 1000%. The electricity "market" was rigged by the power companies, who created false shortages by shutting down power plants, turning the laws of supply and demand into a license to print money.

Every time privatisation is put forward, we hear claims that it will make the service more efficient and will cut prices by XX percent. But it hardly ever happens that way. You usually get a price jump, a reduced service, and lack of maintenance leading to shoddy infrastructure.

Utilities should remain in state control because the state is not allowed to make a profit from them. The prices reflect the cost of providing and maintaining the service, nothing more. Nationalised industries don't have shareholders / bondholders to answer to - there is no conflict of interest. Yes, they could in some cases be made more efficient, but privatisation is not the way to do that.

Industries which aren't necessarily classed as services or utilities can also be run by the state sometimes. For example, ICI (Imperial Chemical Industries) used to be the national chemical company in the UK - profits from it were channelled back into government coffers, thereby reducing the tax burden.
Other examples: Norway has a national oil company, Statoil. It uses income from oil sales to supplement government revenue and fund the welfare state.
In Chile, copper production is under national control, and the law gives 10% of copper revenues directly to the military.

So perhaps one solution if you want to reduce taxation (which is the argument often trotted out by anti-government types) is to allow the government to have some nationalised industries. These would generate revenue for the state, thereby reducing the amount of taxation required to fund other vital state-provided services.
Lacadaemon
02-06-2007, 21:32
I think there are few places in the world that respect individual freedoms more than in western Europe--they have a greater respect for it than we do in the US--and their governments are huge in comparison to ours. We need to get the government we pay for.

Actually, as a percentage of GDP, western European governments aren't really huge compared to the US. It's actually about the same. The big difference is how they spend, and where they choose to concentrate the delivery of services. Also, they are typically less corrupt and more competent. Probably because they are less politicized. (But then politics in Europe is less tribal).
The Nazz
02-06-2007, 21:41
Actually, as a percentage of GDP, western European governments aren't really huge compared to the US. It's actually about the same. The big difference is how they spend, and where they choose to concentrate the delivery of services. Also, they are typically less corrupt and more competent. Probably because they are less politicized. (But then politics in Europe is less tribal).
Like I said, we need to get the government we pay for. Right now, we get the defense contractors we pay for and not a whole hell of a lot else.
Hydesland
02-06-2007, 21:46
perhaps, but unlike any of the organizations that style themselves such now.

But still, it's not really anarchy.

If it is indeed a government, are not your "mob millitas and other organizations" governments as well?

Well, if they get big enough to exercise power over the majority, then I guess they are.
Lacadaemon
02-06-2007, 22:00
Like I said, we need to get the government we pay for. Right now, we get the defense contractors we pay for and not a whole hell of a lot else.

I don't think there is very good value for money in the defense budget either. But that really is not the majority of federal spending.

The fact is, most of it is ill thought out and ineffective entitlement programs. Take social security for example: it pays the most to those who don't need it and the least to those who are poor. Makes no sense.

Or medicare/medicaid. Again, ill thought out and wasteful compared to a properly run single payer system that would cover everyone. (Which would save money).

The rub is, of course, is the American government is probably not competent enough to run a decent single payer system. So I guess we are stuck duking it out with Costa Rica for 37th best healthcare system in the world.
Soheran
02-06-2007, 22:19
But still, it's not really anarchy.

Find the ruler.
The Loyal Opposition
02-06-2007, 23:41
Oh please, no good can come out of 'big government'.


Norway arguably constitutes a "big government:"


The Norwegian economy is a prosperous bastion of welfare capitalism, featuring a combination of free market activity and government intervention. The government controls key areas, such as the vital petroleum sector, through large-scale state enterprises.

( https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/no.html#Econ)

Norway also arguable constitutes the most prosperous society on Earth:


Norway possesses the second highest GDP per-capita and third highest PPP per-capita in the world, and has maintained 1st place in the world in the UNDP Human Development Index (HDI) for the fifth consecutive year (2006). Cost of living is about 30% higher in Norway than in the US, and 25% higher than the UK.
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway#Economy )

Norway has one of the highest GDP per-capita in the world:


GDP - per capita (PPP): $47,800 (2006 est.)
( https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/no.html#Econ )

Norway tops the United Nations Development Programme Human Development Index (2006):
http://hdr.undp.org/hdr2006/pdfs/report/HDR06-complete.pdf (listing on pg. 299)

Norway was recently listed as the most peaceful state on earth, by the Global Peace Index:
http://www.visionofhumanity.com/rankings/

Norway also wins consistantly top scores from Freedom House, in terms of political and civil rights:
http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/press_release/fiw07_charts.pdf

So...

Big government, big welfare, state-owned enterprise....and apparently the most highly developed, economically successful, peaceful, and politically free state on the surface of the planet. Thus, your hypothesis...


Oh please, no good can come out of 'big government'.


...fails to explain empirical reality in this case and so requires revision. There are, as a matter of simple fact, cases where "big government" accomplishes amazing things. Your hypothesis needs to reflect this reality lest it be dismissed as the nonsense that it presently is. (HINT: "A socieity is either 'unfettered capitalist' or '1984 totalitarian hell hole'" is not only the cornerstone of the Libertarian religion, but also a rather egregious false dicotomy....)
Neo Art
03-06-2007, 00:30
At the end of the day, social welfare is entirely incompatable with limited government. Those individuals like the OP should either just come out and admit that they really don't mind poor people starving to death, or have the intellectual honestly to admit that this is exactly what is going to happen.
Neo Art
03-06-2007, 00:36
A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.

And that, at the end of the day, is what limited government and an open market gets you. The idea that somehow we'd be better off in a society that allows companies to let people die because it is cheaper is somewhat odd