View Single Post
Old April 7, 2010, 01:36 PM   #4
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 2,586
Where people complain about a federal government that grows larger at the expense of its citizens, and appropriates for itself really enormous amounts of individual productivity, they complain about stolen labor, one of the greivences of slaves and indentured servants. By this measure, I am less free in a very practical way than americans one century ago.
I guess it depends on which American you would be one century ago, as well as to what extent local governments were doing things that the federal government is now villified for.
I don't think that is true if the measure is the proportion of your own industry you were permitted to retain.

I suppose that depends on whether you are an orator or a thief.
Not really.
I couldn't find the tongue-in-cheek emoticon.

The idea is to remove the tumor rather than manage it.
My point was that abolishing federal agencies has had zero success.
Absolutely correct*, however I don't think any idea enjoys success until it does.

*I don't know whether you would count the regulatory regimen under the NRA (National Recovery Act) stricken by the Sup Ct. It had a very detailed price and wage control scheme that I don't believe has been replicated since. But your core point that abolitionism trades the possibility of marginal success for an all or nothing approach is undeniable.

A useless government agency employing 1,000 people that does nothing of value irritates me; but not nearly so much as a useless government agency employing 1,000 people that interjects itself into my daily life AND also takes money from my pocket to do it.
I do agree. I am not an advocate of efficiency in government if the end toward which that efficiency is put is itself pernicious.
zukiphile is offline  
Page generated in 0.07801 seconds with 7 queries