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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (564838)	5/5/2010 8:23:46 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 1577829

Big or small are politics-as-usual baited traps that never move the discussion forward. Big or small is a relative perspective, relative to the need as indicated by circumstance. The question should be about when to expand or reduce the scope of government endeavor. It is not possible to accomplish what you believe to be impossible. Most people do not believe government can be run efficiently. They have formed that belief after witnessing a long history of government endeavors tending toward inefficiency, more so as time passes for each such circumstance. On the basis of that alone, everyone should consider the wisdom of expanding the role of government to include things already addressed in the free market system, and the wisdom of reducing the scope of government when it risks societal equilibrium. Taking this point on face value as fact, one could conclude it is not wise to expand government operations except when there is cause. Example: National security at risk, expand scope of security operations, when the circumstance reverses making it clear security is over weighted, reduce the scope of national security operations. That is, as long as this belief system is generally accepted as fact. You could work to change that belief system but given our history that doesn't seem likely. People could change their beliefs, which is what I think you would push for. I suggest limiting the size and scope of government to only those things that couldn't be addressed in the private sector free market, thereby keeping the government from getting its hands on societal roles that it wouldn't handle well. So, in one sense they would end up with a more efficient government, but not because they would necessarily have better processes of government. It might be efficient because it would be reduced to only the essentials.