You know, small government was fine when your neighbor lived

[WCGreen]

five miles away.

But now that people are crowded together AND we have developed into an interconnected society where what someone, including corporations, does over there can and often does effect someone over here, you have to have some kind of restraint on how the actions of others, including corporations, effect those around them.

It's as simple as that.

Not having government to be that important buffer between us, including corporations, there would soon be anarchy.

And again, while were are at it, government makes people, and corporations, pay for the actions they take.

And while we are at it, the people who want a limited government want all of us to pay for the protection of certain people, including corporations, and assets that are not in any way a threat to individuals. That to me is the worst over reach of government.

It's what we call a civil and modern society.

To have it otherwise would be barbaric

[eleny]

1. Small gov't was also fine when your neighbor could cut your hair when you could repair his shoes

And you traded farm grown food stuffs. And on and on.

Migrating to cities made bigger government a necessity, imo.

[Liberal Veteran]

4. How dare you suggest my right to sell "farm fresh" salmonella mercury eggs be regulated!

:P

[eleny]

6. When I figure out what you're talking about I'll get back to you

[NYC Liberal]

2. "Small government" was a sane proposition before

all the huge multinational corporations took over.

The biggest reason for government regulation is not to restrict individuals but to control corporations that would otherwise destroy the economy and the environment. Give a corporation an inch and it will take a mile.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

3. Yes, absolutely right.

When people live in dense neighborhoods, they need to have some sort of structure to help them live amicably with each other.

And I agree about our paying for our actions.

Anyone who disagrees should look at Somalia. No taxes, no functioning central government...They have anarchy.

[white_wolf]

5. They don't have anarchy,

Anarchy is a specific movement with it's own philosophy. Somalia has no central government, but they have various local warlords who control territories. They are closer to Feudalism.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

9. Thanks for the info...

[baldguy]

7. Small govt is fine is you want multi-trillion dollar, multinational corporations to rule your life.

[white_wolf]

14. The mere fact that the bottom 40% own so little is bad enough on its own.

However the fact that the top 1% owns 38% of all total wealth is even scarier in my opinion.

[WCGreen]

15. Here Here....

[WinkyDink]

8. That must've been pre-1935.

[Drale]

10. God I wish my neighbor lived 5 miles away

They are freaking insane.:rofl:

[WCGreen]

11. Me too....

[pitohui]

12. really? was it? if you were a white male wife-beater i guess it was

if you were a woman it were better that you had never been born

small gov't is great for the bullies out there esp. the chickenshit bullies of which there are so many

it's like airport screening, i hear all these fucktards claim that airport screening is just a pretense, they have forgotten (or weren't alive) for the 70s when you never knew if a copycat, a crazy, or an extortionist was going to divert your flight to havanna -- i won't pretend that airport screening can catch every member of al quaeda but it's done a damn good job of cutting down on the crazies and the extortioners

small gov't and "each man for himself" was never a good idea, unless you're the biggest son of a bitch in the valley -- and i have noticed that the guys around here yelling for small gov't are exactly the kind of SOBs who were burning crosses (or their dads were burning crosses) when they could get away with it

small gov't is great for fuckwit cowards

[WCGreen]

13. I was referring to the stylized myth of being self sufficient and not commenting at all

on the way people treated each other with in that social set up.

If I wanted to comment on all the troubles that go along with that form of societal organization, the message of what I was saying would have been lost inside the detail.

And I never once said that this form of societal organization I preferred so why would you think I would in anyway condone the actions that come from that form?