RL gun copying Shadowrun: individualized safety., Or "$10,000 gun won't shoot when unless near an ugly watc Options

[Daylen]

for Sovern countries there is no example of one that does anything but try to govern alot. Least that I know of.

In the USA though there are examples of state govts that govern alot or a little. The ones who govern least seem to be doing better right now. As in they are not about to go bankrupt.

[Larme]

for Sovern countries there is no example of one that does anything but try to govern alot. Least that I know of.

In the USA though there are examples of state govts that govern alot or a little. The ones who govern least seem to be doing better right now. As in they are not about to go bankrupt.

There are some that govern a lot that suck (i.e. California) and some that govern a little that suck (i.e. many of the Southern states). I think the conclusion is obvious (and also tautological): the government that governs best governs best. If there was only one right size for governments, a perfect size that produced a perfect state, we would have figured it out by now. But the fact is, the issue is far too complicated to put down to a simple conclusion like "smaller is always better." There's such a thing as too small, and there's also such a thing as big but still pretty good.

[Daylen]

yep sucks down south you should stay out since theft and murder are so high. oh and don't forget racism! we have lynchings every wed just to help get through the week.

and smaller is always better when the govt is too big. what is too big? I'm not sure where to draw the line but I know when the govt needs 1/4 of my wages right off the top before I even start paying property tax and sales tax and alcohol tax...

[Larme]

yep sucks down south you should stay out since theft and murder are so high. oh and don't forget racism! we have lynchings every wed just to help get through the week.

and smaller is always better when the govt is too big. what is too big? I'm not sure where to draw the line but I know when the govt needs 1/4 of my wages right off the top before I even start paying property tax and sales tax and alcohol tax...

Now you're just embarrassing yourself. You don't care about proving your argument. You take it on faith, and expect everyone else to, as well. I'm afraid that's not how logic works. Unless you can state true premises leading to a valid conclusion, your arguments are not worth a hill of beans.

[Daylen]

I take nothing on faith. I've only heard of the really progressive states on the verge of going bankrupt. If you think the south is horrible I dont want to change your mind on that, it just means I just dont want to moving here.

[Sengir]

I guess my point is that crap happens that shouldn't happen, and unpredictably so, when stuff like pulling someone over becomes routine.

I certainly will not content that.

@Daylen: Of course the Great Depression was not in any way caused by what happened in the previous years, it just happened out of the blue and was only influenced by the perceived size of the government (and the solution had nothing to do with the New Deal). When discussing examples which do not fit into that scheme, however, other factors suddenly become important...am I smelling a double standard here?
And what don't you like about the chances Somalia offers to freelance experts for maritime property redistribution, unburdened by taxes and other government influence?

[Daylen]

I have nothing against somalian pirates. if things get bad enough here I might join em (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

If the New Deal was so great why didnt we get out of the depression in the 30s? Seems more the New deal made the depression longer. Got any previous examples of depressions that lasted as long?

[Penta]

Actually, going by the stats, the New Deal did end the Depression, slowly. The problem was that there was a double-dip recession in 1937.

[Daylen]

so where are the examples of depressions lasting longer than the great depression before then?

[Sengir]

If the New Deal was so great why didnt we get out of the depression in the 30s?

You didn't? Interesting part of the world you live in...

[Daylen]

The depression didnt end in the 30s it was the 40s. And just because it ended doesnt mean what the govt did brought the economy out of it. The fact that it was the worst and longest depression and it was where the US govt did the most shows that it is probably bad for govts to steer the economy.

[Sengir]

The depression didnt end in the 30s it was the 40s.

The common definition is that the economy hit the bottom in '33 and was recevering since then. Of course that did not work from one day to the next.

The fact that it was the worst and longest depression and it was where the US govt did the most shows that it is probably bad for govts to steer the economy.

The fact that it was his worst and longest sickness and it was where the doctors did the most shows that it is probably bad for doctors to mess with patients.

[Daylen]

well at least govt doctors. businessmen didnt have that long of a depression when they were the only ones running things. how? decentralised power and the fact that if they couldnt make money they ended up poor and thus no longer running the economy.

[Larme]

Guys, it's pretty clear that Daylen already knows everything and is not open to being persuaded. It's like talking to a dining room table, not a very productive use of time. Plus, it's off topic.

[Daylen]

the same could be said of you.

[Larme]

I actually haven't taken a firm position. All I've really been saying is that there's no simple answer. Small = better is just as facile and nonsensical as big = better. I am telling you that you are not apprehending the entire problem--you are refusing to admit that the problem lacks an easy answer. I am willing to admit that I do not know the solution to the perfect government. I don't know the perfect size, nor the perfect system. You are the one who thinks you know that a small government that does as little as possible is the best thing you can have. All I have done is prove that this is a false assumption, because many small governments that don't do very much produce truly horrible places to live. You, on the other hand, cling to your original conclusion because, as I said, you are not open to being persuaded. There is no point talking to you about it, because you believe on the grounds of faith, that small government works the best, despite your inability to explain the modern prevalence of small governments that do not work at all.

[Daylen]

Proved? with only examples of failed governments instead of simply small ones?

[Larme]

Proved? with only examples of failed governments instead of simply small ones?

It's just a coincidence that the failed governments are small? No causal relationship there? But you have the burden of proof here. You claim you know how the perfect state is created. Prove it. Show me a modern example of the perfect small government. Show me that it exists outside of a conservative's wet dream. Even if it existed in the past, if it can't survive the globalized 21st century, then it's not a viable option. If it was a real, viable option today, it would exist somewhere. So, where?

[Daylen]

As I've said before the states with smaller govts sure are doing better than the big controlling progressive ones. And they are states not provinces. And as far as education and poverty, alot of people in the south dont want or need more education than maybe highschool. Why should more be forced on them? and poverty, well I unfortunetly know plenty of people who have said they really want to make enough to just get by. Why force them to work harder or me to pay for them to have a better lifestyle?

[kzt]

Well, you just dodged the question. "The government that governs least governs best" is an unproven axiom in the 21st century. All of the governments that govern least these days seem to be in charge of hellholes. That can't be a coincidence.

Well, then your example of optimum governments would be Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan under Tojo, the USSR under Stalin and China under Mao? Total control of the economy by the state, total control of communication by the state, indoctrination of the young by the state, secret police everywhere to ensure that you lived the way the government wanted and said only politically allowed things?

[Larme]

Well, then your example of optimum governments would be Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan under Tojo, the USSR under Stalin and China under Mao? Total control of the economy by the state, total control of communication by the state, indoctrination of the young by the state, secret police everywhere to ensure that you lived the way the government wanted and said only politically allowed things?

No, that's a straw man. I never said that the most powerful government is always the best government. All I said was that a small central government without a lot of power seems infeasible in the 21st century, as evidenced by the lack of any successful governments following that model. I am not taking a position here on what the best size for government is, only attempting to show that the ideologues in this conversation have no idea. Obviously, as your examples point out, there can be governments that have too much power. We know that for a fact because of real examples, including many present examples. But it does not follow that just because an all-powerful state is bad, that a powerless state is good. All I'm attempting to show is that the people who claim to know the perfect size of government are full of shit. I do not know how to make the best possible government. But it's a little bit humorous to see people, in the complete absence of modern real-world evidence, claim that they do.

[Warlordtheft]

*twitch*
An awful lot of tribal violence and resentment can be traced back quite cleanly to the French, British, etc, stirring shit up to make a buck.

The sudden introduction to European Capitalism didn't sit well with them, but that's because, as you just said, what works one place and on one people doesn't necessarily work elsewhere.

This had very little to do with capitalism. Mercantilism mostly. But don't forget that the germans had their hand in Africa too (pre-WWI) and afterwards the borders of Africa, Middle east and the balkans were drawn up. They Brits and France did a spectacky job of setting up the countries to fail. Some of this was by design, some of this was just because the line looked good on a map. We are still dealing with this mess 100 years later.

BTW-We've never had a truly capitalistic or communist country.

[Sengir]

businessmen didnt have that long of a depression when they were the only ones running things.

...because you still assume that 1929 just happened out of the blue and the previous years had nothing to do with it. Just like you arbitrarily choose the factors you want to take into account and how to arrange cause and reaction. But hey, if you want to play that game, no problem:


The truth behind recessions can be found in numerology - whenever the year is a multiple of 10, things will be running smoothly soon afterwards:
depression of 1920: Check
depression of 1929: Check
recession of 1980:Check
Crisis of 2007: Check (I'll just define that the current crisis will last very long - any arguments to the contrary are flawed, meaningless and the person using them is a Communist Nazi Jew (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif) )


Go ahead, prove me wrong.

[Daylen]

so the stars aligned after 153 years and all the chickens came home to roost and it was proven that it didnt work anymore and the govt had to control everything?

[Larme]

so the stars aligned after 153 years and all the chickens came home to roost and it was proven that it didnt work anymore and the govt had to control everything?

Sad. Just sad. You can't defend your own views, so all you can do is create straw men to attack. Maybe you can't prove that your ideology is true, but everyone who disagrees with you wants the government to control EVERYTHING! OOoooOOooo!