ReillyT
Senior Member
Yes, I do.
Then you would rather live in the regime that existed during the early 1800s, and we fundamentally disagree on the effects of federal government expansion thus far.
I for one have little problem with the abolition of slavery, desegregation, extension of civil rights to minorities and women, the provision of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. I appreciate that the SEC regulates and requires the public be provided information about securities (even if it doesn't do the best job). I also appreciate the Center for Disease Control, the FDA, the Federal Reserve, wage and hour regulations, the national interstate system, the FDIC, the Clean Air Act, the EPA, the PBGC, the FAA, labour laws, the national park system, Superfund, etc.
The federal government deals with issues that cannot be handled on local basis due to races to the bottom. It solves collective action problems. It is not a boogyman.
The end of slavery and desegregation could have happened without the government, especially considering it was the government that protected these institutions in the first place. There wouldn't have had to have been an extension of civil rights had the government recognized civil rights of all people in the first place. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are all set to collapse in the near future, the Federal Reserve gives us the boom-and-bust cycle, wage and hour regulations lead to higher unemployment, and I'm not sure the SEC does a job in the first place.
That is the best that you have got?
"The end of slavery and desegregation could have happened without the government?" Yes, sure they could have in time. The fact that we fought a civil war over the former and the National Guard forced the latter makes me think that it would have been a while though.
Government would have had to extend civil rights if it had recognized them in the first place? Please tell me you see the irony in that statement.
So you think that Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are good things, you just wish they were run more efficiently?
The boom and bust cycle is what we had prior to the Federal Reserve. The US had actual depressions in 1807, 1837, 1873, 1893, and 1929. How many have we had since then?
We have at times maintained sub-5% unemployment (with a greatly expanded workforce from the 1930s) with wage and hour regulations. That would seem to suggest that they are not hampering employment too much.
SEC? Okay... not always great, but prevents the rampant manipulation of the stock market during 1900-1930. Perhaps we need more regulation.
KK... that was really a sad effort. You got nothing against the CDC?
Last edited: