Q. For Small Government Adherents

[bripat9643]

It's obvious that the self proclaimed conservatives, all for small government, completely failed to provide thoughtful responses.

No one can understand anything for you. You are a dishonest fuck. You spent two seconds composing a disingenuous questions and expect people to spend their day defending smaller government. Why don't you instead explain the rationale for continuing to spend ourselves into bankruptcy? You assholes are the ones that need to defend yourselves!

Spending needs and excuse, not spending speaks for itself.

Thread FAIL.

I simply pointed out that cutting government has cost-benefits and cost-deficits - I thought the question was thought provoking and simply enough even you could understand it - in that I was wrong. But don't take my word for it, read the posts by others who think(?) like you.

What "cost benefits" does government have?

It's obvious that the self proclaimed conservatives, all for small government, completely failed to provide thoughtful responses.

No one can understand anything for you. You are a dishonest fuck. You spent two seconds composing a disingenuous questions and expect people to spend their day defending smaller government. Why don't you instead explain the rationale for continuing to spend ourselves into bankruptcy? You assholes are the ones that need to defend yourselves!

Spending needs and excuse, not spending speaks for itself.

Thread FAIL.

I simply pointed out that cutting government has cost-benefits and cost-deficits - I thought the question was thought provoking and simply enough even you could understand it - in that I was wrong. But don't take my word for it, read the posts by others who think(?) like you.

What "cost benefits" does government have?

Government costs the benefits that private businesses would pay because they suck up profit through regulations and taxes.

- If you run a business and had to create a system of laws and police, as well as roads, currency exchange, as well as educating workers at your own expense, those would all be significant costs.

Your assumption is that we get nothing in exchange.

Prior to Congress, we already had a system of laws that was totally private. It was called "common law." We also had currency without government. It was called "the gold standard." Workers have been educating themselves for hundreds of years. At the time of the Revolution, the literacy rate in this country was 95%, not counting slaves, who weren't allowed to learn to read.

There's also absolutely no reason we can't have private roads. We had numerous private roads prior to the government getting involved. The auto industry loves to have government subsidize its business, but there's absolutely no necessity for it. The belief that it's necessary is promoted by statists like you who want everyone to believe people couldn't survive without government.

 

[The Rabbi]

Taxation is a cornerstone of our Constitution. It is the price you pay for living in a great society

Great societies take care of their own

It's hardly the "cornerstone" of the Constitution, but servile boot-licking toadies such as you like to think so. The Founders viewed taxation as a necessary evil, at best. In fact they viewed government as a necessary evil.

We went to war with England because they were taking 1% of our resources. Now, we happily give them (Uncle Sugar) 30-40% and never bat an eye.

And that's not enough, apparently

Indeed. Th e left would be more than happy to take 50-60-70 percent. Well, of course, with the exception of Soros and Sharpton...they get a pass.

- I laid out my position early, in favor of lower taxes.

I explained that to you, as well, when you got it wrong before.

You're clearly not that bright, very emotional - or as an alternative, perhaps you're just not very honest.

You havent been here very long. And I doubt you'll stick around after everyone ignores you.
RandalFlagg is one of the best posters on here.

 

[Pksimon2007]

- I'm familiar with Grant's work, particularly on the "forgotten depression".

As I said, I'd be happy to debate him on that subject or this one.

If your command of his material is sufficient for you to articulate his arguments, then feel free to do so, and we can debate it here and now.

He made the case that the more gov't intervenes, the worse the recovery. It has certainly been the case this last time, which saw unprecedented intervention followed by the most tepid recovery on record.
Do you have evidence to dispute any of that?

- Yes, I do. But you made the assertion. I'm not going to do a point-by-point refutation of Grant just because you want me to.

If it is worth your time to make an actual argument, to put some thought into it, I will do you the respect of responding with an argument of my own.

Short of you making an argument to explain your very general assertion, there is nothing to talk about.

Translation: I've got nothing.
You are clearly a wanker who is wasting everyone's time by making claims you cannot support.

- Not at all. I just don't jump when narcissists who have no ability to think or debate demand I do.

If you have an argument, put your money where your mouth is, and make it.

I made the argument. You ran away. That is why you are a time waster.

You made claims about what Johnson believed about the causes of poverty. Where is the evidence?
You made claims that gov't intervention helps in a recession. I challenged that based on Grant's work. What is your refutation of that?

- Please cite me making any claims about Johnson's beliefs.

I'll wait for your dumb ass to produce that.

I made claims about the Great Society program, which the simple-minded may have confused as making a claim about Johnson's personal beliefs, so I'll cut you a break.

 

[RandallFlagg]

It's hardly the "cornerstone" of the Constitution, but servile boot-licking toadies such as you like to think so. The Founders viewed taxation as a necessary evil, at best. In fact they viewed government as a necessary evil.

We went to war with England because they were taking 1% of our resources. Now, we happily give them (Uncle Sugar) 30-40% and never bat an eye.

And that's not enough, apparently

Indeed. Th e left would be more than happy to take 50-60-70 percent. Well, of course, with the exception of Soros and Sharpton...they get a pass.

- I laid out my position early, in favor of lower taxes.

I explained that to you, as well, when you got it wrong before.

You're clearly not that bright, very emotional - or as an alternative, perhaps you're just not very honest.

You havent been here very long. And I doubt you'll stick around after everyone ignores you.
RandalFlagg is one of the best posters on here.

Geeeezzzz.......(blush)......aw shucks.......you just made this 71 year old black man's day.....bless you my Son!!

 

[Pksimon2007]

It's hardly the "cornerstone" of the Constitution, but servile boot-licking toadies such as you like to think so. The Founders viewed taxation as a necessary evil, at best. In fact they viewed government as a necessary evil.

We went to war with England because they were taking 1% of our resources. Now, we happily give them (Uncle Sugar) 30-40% and never bat an eye.

And that's not enough, apparently

Indeed. Th e left would be more than happy to take 50-60-70 percent. Well, of course, with the exception of Soros and Sharpton...they get a pass.

- I laid out my position early, in favor of lower taxes.

I explained that to you, as well, when you got it wrong before.

You're clearly not that bright, very emotional - or as an alternative, perhaps you're just not very honest.

You havent been here very long. And I doubt you'll stick around after everyone ignores you.
RandalFlagg is one of the best posters on here.

- Randall Flagg is a terrible poster.

If he's "one of the best here" it says one of two things:

- This forum has terrible posters or

- Your judgment really sucks.

I vote the latter.

 

[bripat9643]

He made the case that the more gov't intervenes, the worse the recovery. It has certainly been the case this last time, which saw unprecedented intervention followed by the most tepid recovery on record.
Do you have evidence to dispute any of that?

- Yes, I do. But you made the assertion. I'm not going to do a point-by-point refutation of Grant just because you want me to.

If it is worth your time to make an actual argument, to put some thought into it, I will do you the respect of responding with an argument of my own.

Short of you making an argument to explain your very general assertion, there is nothing to talk about.

Translation: I've got nothing.
You are clearly a wanker who is wasting everyone's time by making claims you cannot support.

- Not at all. I just don't jump when narcissists who have no ability to think or debate demand I do.

If you have an argument, put your money where your mouth is, and make it.

I made the argument. You ran away. That is why you are a time waster.

You made claims about what Johnson believed about the causes of poverty. Where is the evidence?
You made claims that gov't intervention helps in a recession. I challenged that based on Grant's work. What is your refutation of that?

- Please cite me making any claims about Johnson's beliefs.

I'll wait for your dumb ass to produce that.

I made claims about the Great Society program, which the simple-minded may have confused as making a claim about Johnson's personal beliefs, so I'll cut you a break.

Johnson is the architect of the great society, so when you make claims about the reasons it was created, you're making claims about Johnson's motivation.

 

[The Rabbi]

He made the case that the more gov't intervenes, the worse the recovery. It has certainly been the case this last time, which saw unprecedented intervention followed by the most tepid recovery on record.
Do you have evidence to dispute any of that?

- Yes, I do. But you made the assertion. I'm not going to do a point-by-point refutation of Grant just because you want me to.

If it is worth your time to make an actual argument, to put some thought into it, I will do you the respect of responding with an argument of my own.

Short of you making an argument to explain your very general assertion, there is nothing to talk about.

Translation: I've got nothing.
You are clearly a wanker who is wasting everyone's time by making claims you cannot support.

- Not at all. I just don't jump when narcissists who have no ability to think or debate demand I do.

If you have an argument, put your money where your mouth is, and make it.

I made the argument. You ran away. That is why you are a time waster.

You made claims about what Johnson believed about the causes of poverty. Where is the evidence?
You made claims that gov't intervention helps in a recession. I challenged that based on Grant's work. What is your refutation of that?

- Please cite me making any claims about Johnson's beliefs.

I'll wait for your dumb ass to produce that.

I made claims about the Great Society program, which the simple-minded may have confused as making a claim about Johnson's personal beliefs, so I'll cut you a break.

Post #254 and the preceding. Now you get to tap dance out of that as well.

 

[The Rabbi]

We went to war with England because they were taking 1% of our resources. Now, we happily give them (Uncle Sugar) 30-40% and never bat an eye.

And that's not enough, apparently

Indeed. Th e left would be more than happy to take 50-60-70 percent. Well, of course, with the exception of Soros and Sharpton...they get a pass.

- I laid out my position early, in favor of lower taxes.

I explained that to you, as well, when you got it wrong before.

You're clearly not that bright, very emotional - or as an alternative, perhaps you're just not very honest.

You havent been here very long. And I doubt you'll stick around after everyone ignores you.
RandalFlagg is one of the best posters on here.

- Randall Flagg is a terrible poster.

If he's "one of the best here" it says one of two things:

- This forum has terrible posters or

- Your judgment really sucks.

I vote the latter.

The forum does have terrible posters. You are clearly one of them.

 

[Pksimon2007]

It's obvious that the self proclaimed conservatives, all for small government, completely failed to provide thoughtful responses.

No one can understand anything for you. You are a dishonest fuck. You spent two seconds composing a disingenuous questions and expect people to spend their day defending smaller government. Why don't you instead explain the rationale for continuing to spend ourselves into bankruptcy? You assholes are the ones that need to defend yourselves!

Spending needs and excuse, not spending speaks for itself.

Thread FAIL.

I simply pointed out that cutting government has cost-benefits and cost-deficits - I thought the question was thought provoking and simply enough even you could understand it - in that I was wrong. But don't take my word for it, read the posts by others who think(?) like you.

What "cost benefits" does government have?

No one can understand anything for you. You are a dishonest fuck. You spent two seconds composing a disingenuous questions and expect people to spend their day defending smaller government. Why don't you instead explain the rationale for continuing to spend ourselves into bankruptcy? You assholes are the ones that need to defend yourselves!

Spending needs and excuse, not spending speaks for itself.

Thread FAIL.

I simply pointed out that cutting government has cost-benefits and cost-deficits - I thought the question was thought provoking and simply enough even you could understand it - in that I was wrong. But don't take my word for it, read the posts by others who think(?) like you.

What "cost benefits" does government have?

Government costs the benefits that private businesses would pay because they suck up profit through regulations and taxes.

- If you run a business and had to create a system of laws and police, as well as roads, currency exchange, as well as educating workers at your own expense, those would all be significant costs.

Your assumption is that we get nothing in exchange.

Prior to Congress, we already had a system of laws that was totally private. It was called "common law." We also had currency without government. It was called "the gold standard." Workers have been educating themselves for hundreds of years. At the time of the Revolution, the literacy rate in this country was 95%, not counting slaves, who weren't allowed to learn to read.

There's also absolutely no reason we can't have private roads. We had numerous private roads prior to the government getting involved. The auto industry loves to have government subsidize its business, but there's absolutely no necessity for it. The belief that it's necessary is promoted by statists like you who want everyone to believe people couldn't survive without government.

- Common law was not private at all. It was developed in government court systems.

- The myth that there was currency without government is largely a myth. I'd suggest David Graeber's "Debt: The First 5000 Years" for a little better treatment than you'll find on the Glenn Beck show.

The literacy rate was nowhere near 95% - and your statistic undoubtedly excludes women, as well.

I'd love to see how someone can educate themselves as a neurosurgeon today. You have a reading list for that?

The average worker of 1770 didn't need an education. He needed know little if any math, no science, and probably didn't need to know how to read. Your system was probably sufficient for the time. It is not sufficient for today.

Sure you can have private roads - and have the freedom to pay tolls if you want to move around. Yay liberty, right?

 

[Pksimon2007]

- Yes, I do. But you made the assertion. I'm not going to do a point-by-point refutation of Grant just because you want me to.

If it is worth your time to make an actual argument, to put some thought into it, I will do you the respect of responding with an argument of my own.

Short of you making an argument to explain your very general assertion, there is nothing to talk about.

Translation: I've got nothing.
You are clearly a wanker who is wasting everyone's time by making claims you cannot support.

- Not at all. I just don't jump when narcissists who have no ability to think or debate demand I do.

If you have an argument, put your money where your mouth is, and make it.

I made the argument. You ran away. That is why you are a time waster.

You made claims about what Johnson believed about the causes of poverty. Where is the evidence?
You made claims that gov't intervention helps in a recession. I challenged that based on Grant's work. What is your refutation of that?

- Please cite me making any claims about Johnson's beliefs.

I'll wait for your dumb ass to produce that.

I made claims about the Great Society program, which the simple-minded may have confused as making a claim about Johnson's personal beliefs, so I'll cut you a break.

Post #254 and the preceding. Now you get to tap dance out of that as well.

- And, no quote, hence the red herring.

Is it possible to block people here? You'd be worth doing that.

 

[Wry Catcher]

It's obvious that the self proclaimed conservatives, all for small government, completely failed to provide thoughtful responses. If ever there was a thread which exposed the single minded mentality of the echo chamber, as one based on a foundation of ignorance, it has done so here.

Of course attacking the author of the OP is the second most popular response, the first being the abject stupidity of wanting to cut hundreds of thousands of jobs, and believing only good would come of it.

It's no wonder they vote for the Republican candidate and support Republican policies - as Lincoln pointed out, you can fool some of the people - the stupid ones - all of the time.

It also illustrates how naïve and sophomoric the reactionary right is, and their ridiculous perception of an idealized American past that never actually existed to begin with, and was anything but 'ideal' for African-Americans, women, and gay Americans, among others.

Government is the 'size' it is to accommodate a first world, 21st Century, modern, industrialized super power, a government necessary, proper, and Constitutional.

So the EPA always existed from George Washington's time?
Libs say the dumbest things.

I don't believe you have any right to call anyone dumb, given your track record and the comment above.

President Washington DID NOT govern, "a first world, 21st Century, modern, industrialized super power". Hence you response is at best a non sequitur.

 

[RandallFlagg]

- Yes, I do. But you made the assertion. I'm not going to do a point-by-point refutation of Grant just because you want me to.

If it is worth your time to make an actual argument, to put some thought into it, I will do you the respect of responding with an argument of my own.

Short of you making an argument to explain your very general assertion, there is nothing to talk about.

Translation: I've got nothing.
You are clearly a wanker who is wasting everyone's time by making claims you cannot support.

- Not at all. I just don't jump when narcissists who have no ability to think or debate demand I do.

If you have an argument, put your money where your mouth is, and make it.

I made the argument. You ran away. That is why you are a time waster.

You made claims about what Johnson believed about the causes of poverty. Where is the evidence?
You made claims that gov't intervention helps in a recession. I challenged that based on Grant's work. What is your refutation of that?

- Please cite me making any claims about Johnson's beliefs.

I'll wait for your dumb ass to produce that.

I made claims about the Great Society program, which the simple-minded may have confused as making a claim about Johnson's personal beliefs, so I'll cut you a break.

Johnson is the architect of the great society, so when you make claims about the reasons it was created, you're making claims about Johnson's motivation.

My memory might not be what it used to be, but I had just returned from Basic Training and AIT and had orders for Vietnam and I clearly recall Johnson (CBS - I believe - hell there were only 3 channels) delivering his speech to the nation. Sounded like a good idea at the time, I guess (we were NOT poor - my Father was a Brigadier General in the Air Force) but I thought "Cool, taking care of poor folks" - I wasn't terribly bright in those days - still thought politicians were the "good guys".

50 years later and not one thing has changed. There has ALWAYS been a segment of society that understand how to "game" this system - and they do it well. black folks, white folks, latinos, hell, everybody. And, as in the case of the left, they understand what the term "voting block" means. They have kept the aforementioned groups on the "dole" like a Pusher keeps an addict - addicted.

 

[Pksimon2007]

- Yes, I do. But you made the assertion. I'm not going to do a point-by-point refutation of Grant just because you want me to.

If it is worth your time to make an actual argument, to put some thought into it, I will do you the respect of responding with an argument of my own.

Short of you making an argument to explain your very general assertion, there is nothing to talk about.

Translation: I've got nothing.
You are clearly a wanker who is wasting everyone's time by making claims you cannot support.

- Not at all. I just don't jump when narcissists who have no ability to think or debate demand I do.

If you have an argument, put your money where your mouth is, and make it.

I made the argument. You ran away. That is why you are a time waster.

You made claims about what Johnson believed about the causes of poverty. Where is the evidence?
You made claims that gov't intervention helps in a recession. I challenged that based on Grant's work. What is your refutation of that?

- Please cite me making any claims about Johnson's beliefs.

I'll wait for your dumb ass to produce that.

I made claims about the Great Society program, which the simple-minded may have confused as making a claim about Johnson's personal beliefs, so I'll cut you a break.

Johnson is the architect of the great society, so when you make claims about the reasons it was created, you're making claims about Johnson's motivation.

- When you say "Johnson is the architect", your using a euphemism, and are completely, utterly wrong.

Johnson was the politician who made it happen. He did not design the programs, he did not establish the premises upon which those programs were designed.

You are taking the "great man" theory of history (I know, you've never heard of that, since you admitted that you hate education) to absurd and illogical lengths.

 

[The Rabbi]

It's obvious that the self proclaimed conservatives, all for small government, completely failed to provide thoughtful responses. If ever there was a thread which exposed the single minded mentality of the echo chamber, as one based on a foundation of ignorance, it has done so here.

Of course attacking the author of the OP is the second most popular response, the first being the abject stupidity of wanting to cut hundreds of thousands of jobs, and believing only good would come of it.

It's no wonder they vote for the Republican candidate and support Republican policies - as Lincoln pointed out, you can fool some of the people - the stupid ones - all of the time.

It also illustrates how naïve and sophomoric the reactionary right is, and their ridiculous perception of an idealized American past that never actually existed to begin with, and was anything but 'ideal' for African-Americans, women, and gay Americans, among others.

Government is the 'size' it is to accommodate a first world, 21st Century, modern, industrialized super power, a government necessary, proper, and Constitutional.

So the EPA always existed from George Washington's time?
Libs say the dumbest things.

I don't believe you have any right to call anyone dumb, given your track record and the comment above.

President Washington DID NOT govern, "a first world, 21st Century, modern, industrialized super power". Hence you response is at best a non sequitur.

The usual claptrap from you. No point at all other than you don tlike what I post. Get lost.

 

[Pksimon2007]

Translation: I've got nothing.
You are clearly a wanker who is wasting everyone's time by making claims you cannot support.

- Not at all. I just don't jump when narcissists who have no ability to think or debate demand I do.

If you have an argument, put your money where your mouth is, and make it.

I made the argument. You ran away. That is why you are a time waster.

You made claims about what Johnson believed about the causes of poverty. Where is the evidence?
You made claims that gov't intervention helps in a recession. I challenged that based on Grant's work. What is your refutation of that?

- Please cite me making any claims about Johnson's beliefs.

I'll wait for your dumb ass to produce that.

I made claims about the Great Society program, which the simple-minded may have confused as making a claim about Johnson's personal beliefs, so I'll cut you a break.

Johnson is the architect of the great society, so when you make claims about the reasons it was created, you're making claims about Johnson's motivation.

My memory might not be what it used to be, but I had just returned from Basic Training and AIT and had orders for Vietnam and I clearly recall Johnson (CBS - I believe - hell there were only 3 channels) delivering his speech to the nation. Sounded like a good idea at the time, I guess (we were NOT poor - my Father was a Brigadier General in the Air Force) but I thought "Cool, taking care of poor folks" - I wasn't terribly bright in those days - still thought politicians were the "good guys".

50 years later and not one thing has changed. There has ALWAYS been a segment of society that understand how to "game" this system - and they do it well. black folks, white folks, latinos, hell, everybody. And, as in the case of the left, they understand what the term "voting block" means. They have kept the aforementioned groups on the "dole" like a Pusher keeps an addict - addicted.

- All made possible by the system's design, based on the premise that people were poor because of their flaws.

Jobs are the answer, not programs on how to wash one's penis.

 

[Pksimon2007]

It's obvious that the self proclaimed conservatives, all for small government, completely failed to provide thoughtful responses. If ever there was a thread which exposed the single minded mentality of the echo chamber, as one based on a foundation of ignorance, it has done so here.

Of course attacking the author of the OP is the second most popular response, the first being the abject stupidity of wanting to cut hundreds of thousands of jobs, and believing only good would come of it.

It's no wonder they vote for the Republican candidate and support Republican policies - as Lincoln pointed out, you can fool some of the people - the stupid ones - all of the time.

It also illustrates how naïve and sophomoric the reactionary right is, and their ridiculous perception of an idealized American past that never actually existed to begin with, and was anything but 'ideal' for African-Americans, women, and gay Americans, among others.

Government is the 'size' it is to accommodate a first world, 21st Century, modern, industrialized super power, a government necessary, proper, and Constitutional.

So the EPA always existed from George Washington's time?
Libs say the dumbest things.

I don't believe you have any right to call anyone dumb, given your track record and the comment above.

President Washington DID NOT govern, "a first world, 21st Century, modern, industrialized super power". Hence you response is at best a non sequitur.

The usual claptrap from you. No point at all other than you don tlike what I post. Get lost.

- It's his thread.

What sort of narcissistic little bantam rooster tells the OP to leave his own thread?

 

[hortysir]

Taxation is a cornerstone of our Constitution. It is the price you pay for living in a great society

Great societies take care of their own

It's hardly the "cornerstone" of the Constitution, but servile boot-licking toadies such as you like to think so. The Founders viewed taxation as a necessary evil, at best. In fact they viewed government as a necessary evil.

We went to war with England because they were taking 1% of our resources. Now, we happily give them (Uncle Sugar) 30-40% and never bat an eye.

And that's not enough, apparently

Indeed. Th e left would be more than happy to take 50-60-70 percent. Well, of course, with the exception of Soros and Sharpton...they get a pass.

- I laid out my position early, in favor of lower taxes.

I explained that to you, as well, when you got it wrong before.

You're clearly not that bright, very emotional - or as an alternative, perhaps you're just not very honest.

You repeatedly call people emotional.

Take a minute and click on these users' names and check out how long we've been here.
We get 'emotional' because this is thread number too-damned-many of We Need MORE Government' that we've

 

[bripat9643]

No one can understand anything for you. You are a dishonest fuck. You spent two seconds composing a disingenuous questions and expect people to spend their day defending smaller government. Why don't you instead explain the rationale for continuing to spend ourselves into bankruptcy? You assholes are the ones that need to defend yourselves!

Spending needs and excuse, not spending speaks for itself.

Thread FAIL.

I simply pointed out that cutting government has cost-benefits and cost-deficits - I thought the question was thought provoking and simply enough even you could understand it - in that I was wrong. But don't take my word for it, read the posts by others who think(?) like you.

What "cost benefits" does government have?

I simply pointed out that cutting government has cost-benefits and cost-deficits - I thought the question was thought provoking and simply enough even you could understand it - in that I was wrong. But don't take my word for it, read the posts by others who think(?) like you.

What "cost benefits" does government have?

Government costs the benefits that private businesses would pay because they suck up profit through regulations and taxes.

- If you run a business and had to create a system of laws and police, as well as roads, currency exchange, as well as educating workers at your own expense, those would all be significant costs.

Your assumption is that we get nothing in exchange.

Prior to Congress, we already had a system of laws that was totally private. It was called "common law." We also had currency without government. It was called "the gold standard." Workers have been educating themselves for hundreds of years. At the time of the Revolution, the literacy rate in this country was 95%, not counting slaves, who weren't allowed to learn to read.

There's also absolutely no reason we can't have private roads. We had numerous private roads prior to the government getting involved. The auto industry loves to have government subsidize its business, but there's absolutely no necessity for it. The belief that it's necessary is promoted by statists like you who want everyone to believe people couldn't survive without government.

- Common law was not private at all. It was developed in government court systems.

Wrong. Common law was the law of the common people. It was separate from the crown which had no control over it. It was the creation of private courts created to resolve disputes between the common people.

- The myth that there was currency without government is largely a myth. I'd suggest David Graeber's "Debt: The First 5000 Years" for a little better treatment than you'll find on the Glenn Beck show.

It's not a myth. It's an historical fact. In this country, before the federal reserve was created, we had free banking. Any bank in the country could print it's own currency. You can even find some of these bank notes for sale on the internet.

Please tell me how these notes are a myth.

The literacy rate was nowhere near 95% - and your statistic undoubtedly excludes women, as well.

it was easily over 90%. Books like Moby Dick sold hundreds of thousands of copied. And that was in the day when books were luxury items. Ever town had its newspaper.

I'd love to see how someone can educate themselves as a neurosurgeon today. You have a reading list for that?

A neurosurgeon would obviously have to go to a school, but that doesn't mean government is required.

The average worker of 1770 didn't need an education. He needed know little if any math, no science, and probably didn't need to know how to read. Your system was probably sufficient for the time. It is not sufficient for today.

Nevertheless the vast majority could read, and math can be learned on the job when it's needed. There were plenty of self-taught engineers in those days. Isambard Kingdom Brunel is a classic example.

Sure you can have private roads - and have the freedom to pay tolls if you want to move around. Yay liberty, right?

What's wrong with paying tolls? If you move to Orlando you'll pay them just about every time you go somewhere. Nowadays they have electronic devices that pay them for you automatically. They even have devices that read your license plate so you don't have to install anything in your car.

 

[RandallFlagg]

I simply pointed out that cutting government has cost-benefits and cost-deficits - I thought the question was thought provoking and simply enough even you could understand it - in that I was wrong. But don't take my word for it, read the posts by others who think(?) like you.

What "cost benefits" does government have?

What "cost benefits" does government have?

Government costs the benefits that private businesses would pay because they suck up profit through regulations and taxes.

- If you run a business and had to create a system of laws and police, as well as roads, currency exchange, as well as educating workers at your own expense, those would all be significant costs.

Your assumption is that we get nothing in exchange.

Prior to Congress, we already had a system of laws that was totally private. It was called "common law." We also had currency without government. It was called "the gold standard." Workers have been educating themselves for hundreds of years. At the time of the Revolution, the literacy rate in this country was 95%, not counting slaves, who weren't allowed to learn to read.

There's also absolutely no reason we can't have private roads. We had numerous private roads prior to the government getting involved. The auto industry loves to have government subsidize its business, but there's absolutely no necessity for it. The belief that it's necessary is promoted by statists like you who want everyone to believe people couldn't survive without government.

- Common law was not private at all. It was developed in government court systems.

Wrong. Common law was the law of the common people. It was separate from the crown which had no control over it. It was the creation of private courts create to resolve disputes between the the common people.

- The myth that there was currency without government is largely a myth. I'd suggest David Graeber's "Debt: The First 5000 Years" for a little better treatment than you'll find on the Glenn Beck show.

It's not a myth. It's an historical fact. In this country, before the federal reserve was created, we had free banking. Any bank in the country could print it's own currency. You can even find some of these bank notes for sale on the internet.

Please tell me how this note is a myth.

The literacy rate was nowhere near 95% - and your statistic undoubtedly excludes women, as well.

it was easily over 90%. Books like Moby Dick sold hundreds of thousands of copied. And that was in the day when books were luxury items. Ever town had its newspaper.

I'd love to see how someone can educate themselves as a neurosurgeon today. You have a reading list for that?

A neurosurgeon would obviously have to go to a school, but that doesn't mean government is required.

The average worker of 1770 didn't need an education. He needed know little if any math, no science, and probably didn't need to know how to read. Your system was probably sufficient for the time. It is not sufficient for today.

Nevertheless the vast majority could read, and math can be learned on the job when it's needed. There were plenty of self-taught engineers in those days.
Isambard Kingdom Brunel is a classic example.

Sure you can have private roads - and have the freedom to pay tolls if you want to move around. Yay liberty, right?

What's wrong with paying tolls? If you move to Orlando you'll pay them just about every time you go somewhere. Nowadays they have electronic devices that pay them for you automatically. They even have devices that read your license plate so you don't have to install anything in your car.

The only part of your response that I (personally) don't necessarily agree with is the "tolls" thing. Roads are built with taxes. They "should" belong to the people of the state. Unfortunately, many states are now dealing with foreign governments (Germany, France) to maintain these toll roads. Frankly, I wasn't aware of this until I went to Denver to visit an old friend and he filled me in. Hell, to ride from Denver to the Airport on the toll road can cost a person $15 ONE WAY.

95% of that money goes to the company that maintains the road. The other 5% is lost on the way to the state house.

Those roads are well maintained (to be sure) while the Denver roads are garbage (and I mean that seriously). On the other hand, there is only one toll road (owned and maintained by the state) in Kansas. It is from Topeka to Kansas City and it costs $1.50 to ride the 70 or so miles. Been on a Kansas road lately? They are like silk.

 

[Iceweasel]

It's obvious that the self proclaimed conservatives, all for small government, completely failed to provide thoughtful responses.

No one can understand anything for you. You are a dishonest fuck. You spent two seconds composing a disingenuous questions and expect people to spend their day defending smaller government. Why don't you instead explain the rationale for continuing to spend ourselves into bankruptcy? You assholes are the ones that need to defend yourselves!

Spending needs and excuse, not spending speaks for itself.

Thread FAIL.

I simply pointed out that cutting government has cost-benefits and cost-deficits - I thought the question was thought provoking and simply enough even you could understand it - in that I was wrong. But don't take my word for it, read the posts by others who think(?) like you.

I thought about it decades ago, what makes you think you're special? I'm conservative by choice and especially fiscally. Like I said, I'd start from the ground up and fund what we need and go from there. If you couldn't accept the answer, that's on you. Claiming I had none is a lie.