Patters

Help me understand this. Let's suppose, we got back to basics, and had a small federal government and low taxes, what would be different for you?

(1) You'd have more money in your pocket, assuming your boss didn't let you go and hire someone cheaper or because they were prettier.
(2) The freeloaders would be left to fend for themselves, and you'd have all the guns and ammo you need to protect yourselves.
(3) You could get rid of immigrants, blacks, gays, and other pests simply by not allowing them in your restaurants, apartment complexes, and stores.

What else?

IllegalContact

its really hard to respond to such nonsense.......but

1 - I'd have more money in my pocket.......my boss letting me go is not dependent upon govt size.....unless of course I was working for one of the ridiculous govt agencies

2 - given police officers are paid by my property taxes, I'd say govt size has nothing to do with this
3 - again.....nothing to do with government size.....


you need to come up with some relevant points

STFarmy

Patters, you're better than this.

State

Very fair question, Patters.

Smaller government means I could be more active in voluntary associations, the "little platoons" Edmund Burke writes about, such as the Boy Scouts (I was an Eagle Scout.), and I could give more money to charity.

This year, because of an expected $3,000 increase in my taxes, I am limiting what I am giving to charity, perhaps excluding one or two, such as Catholic Charities (the religion of my wife) and the United Way.

Dennis Prager writes that when the government grows larger, the people become smaller. I agree. Big Government Means Small People - Dennis Prager - National Review OnlineAmericans would become more virtuous and more self-reliant--necessitating better local and more robust locally based institutions--than they are with Big Gubmit.

sdaniels7114

There'd be a gigantic building boom in this country if building codes were eliminated. That would put money in my pocket in no time flat. I mean in less than a month my finances would do a complete U-turn.

__________________
Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob everyone.

DarrylS

If they were eliminated dangerous crap would be built, modified is more like it. Unscrupulous contractors would be rich fast...

You need some standards, even though the standards today are too stringent and prohibitive for contractors & people who seek their services.

__________________
"Being the best doesn't mean you always win. It just means you win more than anyone else".. tweet from Kurt Warner to Tom Brady.

Patters

I simply stated the reasons why I think libertarianism is a bad idea. All the things I stated are reasonably possible in a libertarian, small government world. Do you disagree?

Patters

So, if we cut taxes you would do more charity work. I don't see the relationship. But, as far as you giving more to charity, that's very nice. I would too. They'd need them, since so many charities depend of federal grants.

I agree the desperate would commit to desperate measures if they could not find jobs, or they had to protect their families. So, that's the self-reliant part. As far as people becoming more virtuous, if you go back to the days of that kind of virtue you hand lynchings, slavery, spousal rape, child abuse, and all sorts of untold secrets. Your virtuous world is as mythical as the belief that Washington never told a lie.

To promote virtue and self-reliance, we need to spend more on education and introduce classes on ethics and civics. The frustrating thing about you, State, is that in a way I agree all the immigrants are threatening what's good about American culture. If we don't invest in education, not only for children, but adults, it will be developed for the things we both like about American culture to prevail. For instance, if you object to Spanish becoming so much a part of American culture, then support increased spending on English.

mcgraw_wv

Or you can start your own business, and put your god given talents to a very productive use. Or you can be good at what you do, and be a value to your boss... You fear for the people who prove to not be valuable enough to keep... I will only pay people who produce and add value for my customers, am I supposed to keep marginally productive people on the pay roll?

Um no... People would help each other, you should see how mexican and south American families act here in America... they are poor as hell but all eat, and take care of each other. We can't afford to ensure every family has a big screen TV, AC, XBoxes, and Laptops... time to scale back what it means to have a happy life for those who don't want to try hard or leverage their gifts...

Are you serious? You sir are pathetic...

Actually no, I would open up business to welcome all becuase I want to make as much money as possible, the free market rewards the businesses who can attract the most customers, not the ones who protect services for the few...

Patters

You could open your own business now, and would not be expected to keep unproductive people. A tax drop, even the most extreme, is not going to put that much more in your pocket, especially if we went with a flat tax.

No one wants the government paying for big tvs and xboxes. A relatively small number of people abuse the system, and in any scenario we should crack down on fraud. Most of the very poor live very poor, but as you point out with Mexican and Souther American families, most families even now try to help out, passing the old flat-screen tv or xbox on to a needy relative.

You would be like that, I believe that, but I also think in some religious communities there are stores and apartment complexes that would not serve gays or transgendered people. I believe there are areas of the country where businesses would choose not to serve Hispanics, blacks, Jews, whites, Christians, Muslims you name it, and simple economies of scale tells me that minorities would suffer most. It doesn't always make good business sense to be tolerant. I could definitely see some people only going to stores that served their group but not another.