Show of HandsShow of Hands

Comments: Add Comment

Krystina Let Freedom Reign
02/09/19 7:46 pm

I can’t believe anyone votes no on this. What’s the average IQ of these people? This is a no-brainer.

Reply
Casper Deep inthe Heart ofTexas
02/09/19 3:52 pm

This is the key difference between Democrats & Republicans.

I keep getting reminded how public schools are failing us.

Reply
phalnx Ohio
02/09/19 11:59 am

Not necessarily. We had a lot less government in the 19th century, and unless you were rich, life was pretty miserable. There was no Middle-Class to speak of before Unionism starred driving wages up later in the century, and the gains they made are protected by arbitration laws enforced by our government.

Reply
mark4
02/10/19 4:24 am

That was the status of the world. There was far less for workers to get until more was produced. And it wasn’t government that produced enough that unionism could have any success.

mark4
02/09/19 11:08 am

And every new govt employee means more friends and relatives who want to think, "well, maybe it isn’t so bad," further endangering our liberties.

Reply
orgblu10 Shamerica
02/09/19 10:17 am

This is as basic a principle as exists in any area of life.

Reply
LeftLibertarian The Age of Outrage
02/09/19 10:16 am

If you mean government size in the sense of involvement in personal lives or its means of repression sure, not the bogus fiscal sense (where $99,000 of the budget spent on prisons and military weapons for police officers is not as “big government” as $100,000 on healthcare), as there have been numerous states that are radically authoritarian while having low spending overall (see US backed dictatorships in Latin America), while the fairly high in social spending Nordic model countries rank among the highest for civil rights and openness in their political system.
.

mark4
02/09/19 11:05 am

Yeah, ain’t it nice to have Uncle Sam to be your patsy, not having to protect yourself. Where would your Nordic example be without it?

LeftLibertarian The Age of Outrage
02/09/19 11:34 am

Not my Nordic model (not even close), and your poll is on the internal, domestic workings of a country. If we were going to introduce the US military into the equation, we can see how US military intervention can have differing outcomes depending on the interests that encourage intervention in a given country and era, and how that also applies to the potential freedoms a country will have. Here we have one that was more favorable and less favorable, both of which were subject o intervention by the most dominant military state in the world.
.

mark4
02/10/19 4:20 am

Hmmm.
I seem to recall an extremely aggressive Union of Soviet Socialist Republics stripping the countries it invaded of everything of any use to them because their socialist system failed them. I remember E Germany right after the fall of the wall, an entire country that looked like the worst ghetto you can imagine.

But you think they would have treated Nordic countries much better. Okay....

EarlyBird Portland
02/09/19 9:28 am

Absolutely true. The answer is never “more government”.

Reply
Whatsamattaferu 11726
02/09/19 8:22 am

Go to China and see how they live

Reply
mark4
02/09/19 8:43 am

Pretty good indicator.

Metamorphosis
02/09/19 6:59 am

Totally false. You can legally say many things in the town square that would get you fired in an office.
You can get fired for many things that the government protects your rights for in public.
This is just one more misnomer promoted by conservatives.

Reply
mark4
02/09/19 8:45 am

So more government size is not correlated with more government control?

Can you give me some examples that can illustrate what you’re saying?

Metamorphosis
02/09/19 10:16 am

Government provides us with the protection of our military, police and fire departments. Would you rather those protections be provided through private enterprises with profits the main motivating factor?
Before Social Security people relied on business pension plans that often went broke or companies reneged on their commitments.
Freedoms are protected better through government than through profit motivated corporations.

mark4
02/09/19 11:01 am

As to the first,
Of course.
As to the second,
Government can’t provide except what it has taken. In other words, before Social Security there wasn’t enough wealth that much could be distributed, and it winds up mostly in the hands of the collectors, administrators and distributors rather than what is euphemistically called, "the intended recipients." Things aren’t better for poor people because of SS but worse.

Metamorphosis
02/09/19 1:12 pm

There are literally millions of retired people in this country that have contributed over their lifetimes to Social Security and love it.
If you question this, try running a political campaign on eliminating Social Security. I dare you. I double dog dare you!

mark4
02/10/19 4:26 am

All you said is that people get mad if you take something from them. It’s a true statement but not to the point.

ozzy
02/09/19 6:46 am

Or as Reagan said: as government grows liberty shrinks.

Reply