tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1506855282716397592.post1367432697788330997..comments2008-08-13T22:10:45.900-04:00Comments on Deus Decorus Est: Economic Freedom and PowerSpeaker for the Deadhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10032990561585099482noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1506855282716397592.post-9765454235660058752008-08-13T22:10:00.000-04:002008-08-13T22:10:00.000-04:00I also would prefer more smaller governments, rath...I also would prefer more smaller governments, rather than one large one. In other words, I would rather expand the power of the state and local governments and decrease the power of the federal government? Why? First of all, I think there is a TINY bit less waste at the state level, because the problem solvers are more directly tied to the problems. Also, more power to state governments creates more competition; people can choose between states, and so states have to offer a good product. (This is another reason I would oppose global unification on any greater level than what we have today.)<BR/><BR/>But your main point:<BR/><BR/>Sorry I wasn't clear. Pure capitalism is essentially anarchy, which I don't support. I do support some form of government regulation of business; to be honest, I'm not exactly sure WHAT form. I listed a few examples on my Facebook note of this post.Speaker for the Deadhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10032990561585099482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1506855282716397592.post-57182349252759158502008-07-11T11:48:00.000-04:002008-07-11T11:48:00.000-04:00The one point where I can't follow your reasoning ...The one point where I can't follow your reasoning is this: you say that an economy run by corporate conglomerates is not capitalistic, but you are opposed to government intervention to restrain corporations. I am just not sure what options are left. <BR/><BR/>History seems to have shown us clearly that pure capitalism leads precisely and inevitably to an economy dominated by corporations. They are simply more efficient in the short term and that is all that is necessary. The ONLY way these have ever been reined in is through government intervention. <BR/><BR/>In a democracy, this distinction between the people and the government is not altogether clear. How would the *people* choose to restrain corporations? The most obvious way is through their representative government. <BR/><BR/>It is not clear that social democracy or a democratic socialist society would give people less power than a capitalist democracy. I think we can see in our own system, due in part to the size of our nation and in part to our capitalist tendencies, individuals have very little power to change anything. Personally I would prefer smaller, more local governments or either type. <BR/><BR/>But I would MOST prefer a small, local government that tended towards progressive social policies and took a relatively firm hand towards corporations.Spaceman Spiffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02195067716296117149noreply@blogger.com