Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: geode00 who wrote (144111)	10/29/2008 6:46:29 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 173976

"Joined at the hip" does not imply that you can not or should not analyze the constituent parts. Even literally, you can analyze things that are attached to you hip separately from your hip or the rest of your body. And it applies to things that are figuratively "joined at the hip" as well. If you believe that people act in their own best interests Generally they do. Sometimes they do not. But even when they do not it doesn't automatically mean the government would choose better for them. and that the 'market' solves all human behavior issues I never said or implied that it does. It just solves more of them than government, and some of the things government does or tries to do would be better left to the market. then people should be leaving society in droves for a better life elsewhere. Nonsense. Elsewhere they would be subject to government as well. Besides which, once again I didn't say and don't believe that "having government is a bad idea". The point is that government is too big, and that smaller government would be a good thing. If our only choices where total anarchy, or a government at least as big as we have now, than I'm choosing government at least as big as we have now. But those are not our only choices, and the fact that our current government set up is better than total anarchy, does not imply that our current government setup, or just its size is ideal. You can call it what it is but living in society necessitates living with a government or else it's just anarchy. Your either ignoring what I'm saying, and substituting a strawman, replacing my actual points and ideas about smaller government with anarchy; or your creating a false dilemma, where the only choices are "huge government" and "anarchy", so your incorrectly reading "smaller government" as "anarchy". Whichever one your doing, and whether your are doing so by mistake or because your arguing in bad faith, you should stop.