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 : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (24243)	7/18/2012 9:38:18 AM
From: TimF	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

the first things humans do when they get together, anywhere, is form a government to regulate human behavior That's probably not true. But even if it was, governments can, and have, regulated far lighter than most of them do now. and to pool resources for the common good Which can and very frequently is done without using government, and prior to the existence of governments. Family ties, charity, and markets are even today bigger than governments in terms of how people cooperate. Government do provide benefits, but we would benefit more with less government. Your argument about how people tend to always form governments and how government do provide public goods is an argument against anarchy, but not against smaller government, even much smaller, and certainly not a good argument for the expansion of government. Your other argument "governments regulate everything so what's one more thing", is neither accurate nor a useful argument if it was accurate. Through your filter all new government regulation is bad Just the majority of it. But increasing the overall level of regulation is bad since its already too high. thus you look at Obama Care and imagine all the bad things that "could" happen. No, the things I've been talking about in this specific conversation certainly will happen. The relevant questions are how common they will be, and what compensating advantages will occur. If they where rate, and the advantages where large, then the bill could still be beneficial despite the costs and perverse incentives it creates. But neither "rare", nor "serious compensating advantages" seems likely. government regulation can be very good I agree. as most that has stuck is very good I disagree. it's a slight, incremental, and long over due Its none of those things. Its a major change in the wrong direction. Not just because it involves bigger government, and specifically bigger federal government, but also because its design is so poor. If we are going to have bigger government, at least make it better government, this is worse government. All regulating, all the time, everything. it's what we do. No it isn't. And even if you mean something more like "almost every aspect about almost everything almost all the time its still not what we do. And if we did, it still wouldn't support doing more, if anything it would be a good argument against further expansion, since we would already have such incredibly extensive regulation. Lunging at the windmill of human nature isn't going to do you any good. Perhaps true, but mostly irrelevant.