Small Government Vs Big Government

[Jakalwarrior]

This is about the Federal Government.

Do you believe the government should be a powerful part of our life that uses a signifigant portion of our income to provide services it deems useful, to fund its self, and to give to the causes it considers important?
Should the government watch over us, take care of us, and protect our interests?

or

Should the government be small, weak, take in little funds, and only act as a facilitator for the states to voice their opinions and compromise on things that affect the whole... Mostly leaving the states to make their own descisions and fend for themselves.


/\ the Question - (forgot to check the "poll" option, so... just discuss lol)

____________Seperating line____________________________________

\/ my opinion

My opinion is that the government should stop forcing states to do its bidding by taking in a large amount of money (which the states need to function) and then not doling it out unless the states do exactly what they want. I believe the president should be a powerless or nonexistent office, like our fore fathers envisioned (people were too used to monarchy so they had to give them something, but it was designed to be a mostly powerless office). I also think states should handle their own business and act as individual entities in a union, not the federal government's bitches.

[PRBori]

Without a governement, there will be no laws, and without laws there will only be chaos for not every individual will react the same. That said, I see no issues with having a STRONG Government that is based on what people want and protect it's people.


I personally prefer CENTRALIZATION over DECENTRALIZATION... although, I may not always agree with the plans in place for Centralization is certainly a preferred method.

[Mafiaangel180]

Without a governement, there will be no laws

I'm going to disagree with that. There are always laws and will always be laws regardless of government.


I'm in favor of small government.

[Doppelbock]

History shows that large governments and large government programs: (a) tend to be incompetent and inefficient; and (b) tend to be corrupt (or, more accurately, enable corruption to occur). So no, I don't want a large government that confiscates a large part of my earned income via taxation and then gives it back to me (or more accurately, to others) in the form of various services and programs that are delivered inefficiently and expensively.

[Claptonian]

Without a governement, there will be no laws, and without laws there will only be chaos for not every individual will react the same. That said, I see no issues with having a STRONG Government that is based on what people want and protect it's people.


Because not all people "want" the same thing, therefore the more government gets involved, the more the minority will get shafted.

I'm in favor of no government, but small would be better than big.

[thod]

You don't have to tax to pay for all the services, which is what most people seem to dislike. Cuba doesn't train, pay for, and send its doctors all over the world through taxation. It does it because it owns stuff and keeps the profits. I couldn't care less if the government nationalized all the farms and used the profits they generate to pay for free health care for all. I don't see any of the profits off those farms so its a a win-win situation. You can do an awful lot with government ownership and spending the profits such as eliminate income taxes. Yes, it will be inefficient. But then again it seems to me that all the efficiency goes to the rich guys that own the stuff. The average man may be offered cheaper stuff from more efficient operations but he has no money to buy it.

I am attracted to the government paying for all its expenditure through ownership of assets. If it wants to spend more it better get more efficient. This removes all taxes from the people. Its the rich guys that object. They want to be able to have those assets and that income for themselves and not have it wasted, ie spent on the poor.

[Claptonian]

What exactly is the fundamental difference between the government taking our money (the product of our labor) through taxation, and the government taking our property and jobs (our ability to produce) through the nationalization of certain industries?

There is no fundamental difference, but the result is that not only will the government still be stealing from people, but it will be creating an inefficient, bureaucratic monopoly which will lower the quality and abundance of the products of whatever industry it chooses to take over.

[Tenacious B]

You don't have to tax to pay for all the services, which is what most people seem to dislike. Cuba doesn't train, pay for, and send its doctors all over the world through taxation. It does it because it owns stuff and keeps the profits. I couldn't care less if the government nationalized all the farms and used the profits they generate to pay for free health care for all. I don't see any of the profits off those farms so its a a win-win situation. You can do an awful lot with government ownership and spending the profits such as eliminate income taxes. Yes, it will be inefficient. But then again it seems to me that all the efficiency goes to the rich guys that own the stuff. The average man may be offered cheaper stuff from more efficient operations but he has no money to buy it.

I am attracted to the government paying for all its expenditure through ownership of assets. If it wants to spend more it better get more efficient. This removes all taxes from the people. Its the rich guys that object. They want to be able to have those assets and that income for themselves and not have it wasted, ie spent on the poor.
And when the government nationalizes your assets?

The government has already shown it will not become more efficient. If it needs more, it will take more. If it has already taken everything, it will give you less back.



I think the federal government should be like a wall around the country. It protects us and deals with the rest of the world, yet basically leaves us alone when within its walls. Small government is it for me.

No one is more concerned with nor will work harder and smarter for my well being than me.

[Vortex]

My opinion is that the government should stop forcing states to do its bidding by taking in a large amount of money (which the states need to function) and then not doling it out unless the states do exactly what they want. I believe the president should be a powerless or nonexistent office, like our fore fathers envisioned (people were too used to monarchy so they had to give them something, but it was designed to be a mostly powerless office). I also think states should handle their own business and act as individual entities in a union, not the federal government's bitches.

You *do* realize you just confused state and federal taxes, right? Also, how are those Articles of Confederation working out? Oh wait - the founding fathers dropped that.


The rest of the replies get increasing anarchistic, and I'm not really in the mood to deconstruct every post. Taxes = eminent domain? luls?

-----


As to the question at hand, I'm a moderate Libertarian. Government needs to be medium sized. Drop all this social welfare crap, dramatically increase federal research grants, revamp how college education is paid for, fix the tort system, change how medical is paid for (make it compete with itself so costs naturally drop), and run a surplus instead of a deficit. That would be a good start on fixing the current problems.

[Latte]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts._Government_Pensio n_Fund_-_Global

It can work... but only if it's run as if it was a private company with little or no intervention from politicians on how it is run.

The money earned however, isn't used as well as I'd like it to. I'm not very fond of the way the current administration is handling things, but at least they aren't messing with how the companies themselves are run to any degree that would affect things very negatively.

[Jakalwarrior]

You *do* realize you just confused state and federal taxes, right? Also, how are those Articles of Confederation working out? Oh wait - the founding fathers dropped that.


The rest of the replies get increasing anarchistic, and I'm not really in the mood to deconstruct every post. Taxes = eminent domain? luls?

-----



I'm not confusing them, im talking about states needing money that the federal gov feeds them (with strings attached) to function. States could just increase their own taxes to make up for it, but then the citizens would end up paying a larger % of their income to get the same service, making it an undesirable state...

Anywho, quoting wiki again though it pains me

"The National Bureau of Economic Research has concluded that the combined federal, state, and local government average marginal tax rate for most workers to be about 40% of income.[1][2] The Tax Foundation concluded that government at all levels will collect 30.8% of the nation's income for 2008.[3]"

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


----That just plain hurts.

[Antares]

I believe in a government with just enough power to make laws and protect the rights of everyone and make life better and easier, such as building roads, schools and hospitals. They should be a good common service provider, but the curriculum, religion and press should be completely separate. There is NO additional influence, no drafts, and keeps out of international drama (like the US allies are doing right now. Here in China we're just watching the fray).

[ArchonAlarion]

I believe that the government should be so small, that it should not exist :)

The state only acts through coercion. Taxes are theft. The free market is a far better solution.

[Latte]

"The National Bureau of Economic Research has concluded that the combined federal, state, and local government average marginal tax rate for most workers to be about 40% of income.

Paying that high % with the small amounts of publicly funded stuff you have.

That's rather impressive.

[Jakalwarrior]

Ok, now that a poll has been added, vote you slackers ;)

[ShaiGar]

wait wait wait, i wanna change my vote to an imperialistic aristocracy under me.

[Ool]

Americans amuse me. They think they can live in a country that spans across an entire continent and believe they can do without a government matching their nation’s size.

Then they vote people into government who tell them government is evil and should be reduced, only to watch it grow and grow corrupt under those very people, like an abused, unwanted child.

And then, after they’ve beaten and neglected it and it’s dysfunctional, they turn around and tell anyone who will listen: “See, I told you government is no good and doesn’t work. Let’s neglect it some more…!”

And yet in the end they get government anyway—a corporate-run shadow government, because someone has to run things in a place as big as that. Only that government isn’t democratic and beholden to its people. All it cares about is short term profits for a very small ruling elite and cheap labor from the rest, with a social Darwinist attitude.


All the while people abroad watch the spectacle in a state of intrigued bemusement. Not that they don’t have problems of their own, but the problems and priorities of the US are quite unique and peculiar compared to theirs. For one thing that poll gives away the nationality of the poll-taker instantly, the same way that anything involving “evolution vs. intelligent design” would have…

[AntimonyLegault]

Bigger government=more footfalls, almost like a social carcinogen. Paternalistic repetition in nature is no mistake, growth and division are the seeds of time.

[Ool]

History shows that large governments and large government programs: (a) tend to be incompetent and inefficient; and (b) tend to be corrupt (or, more accurately, enable corruption to occur).

It’s better to be inefficient than to be ineffective. Do you think local labor laws, for instance, prohibiting practices like child labor, can have any effect, if a big employer could just play off states against each other, blackmailing one state by threatening to take their business into a neighboring state with laxer regulations, and with it all its jobs? You think there’s no corruption if you localize things? Nation-wide competition wouldn’t go away, and the rat race doesn’t care about the rats…

Look at what’s happening with outsourcing to places like China and India and other sweatshop nations! Imagine that kind of thing going on on a national level as well! It used to.

Yes, you may be inefficient on a large scale. But you may be totally ineffective on a small scale, like someone trying to dam a huge a flood with a single pebble…





Ool added to this post, 8 minutes and 31 seconds later...

Bigger government=more footfalls, almost like a social carcinogen. Paternalistic repetition in nature is no mistake, growth and division are the seeds of time.

Actually the cancer metaphor is totally misplaced in this context, since a cancer is exactly a part of your body that doesn’t adhere to regulations and the restrictive bureaucracy of your genetic laws and just does whatever it can do to grow. It is strict regulation of what the cells of your body are allowed to do that prevents cancer. Loosening these restrictions is what causes cancer, which is, in turn, unrestricted growth and division, until it chokes the body to death…





Ool added to this post, 2 minutes and 15 seconds later...

I believe that the government should be so small, that it should not exist :)

The state only acts through coercion. Taxes are theft. The free market is a far better solution.

And should you be free to sell crack in front of schools if an unregulated market is so good at taking care of everything…?

[zavizar]

I believe it depends on where government gets involved-->political (mainly social) or economical.

I have my own ideas on how a government should function. I am not satisfied with any government that has come to existance because most of them focus on one primary issue and then wing it if they solve the problem or if they give up transitorily. There are many philosophers who have introduced numerous ideas on what a government should do. I would be fond with a legislature and a justice system, and I would disclude the presidency due to the fact that you rarely have ideal leaders who will introduce something new and improve upon certain establishments and precedents. If you were to list all 43 US presidents, most would rank as either 'Fair' or 'Poor'; so few would be considered great--in my opinion. Having a Dictatorship just makes it worse since there's only one person making the decisions and they are, more or less, sick in the head. Like the presidents and prime ministers throughout history, you rarely get acceptional dictators. So I stand for a presidentless democratic system.

Economics-wise, I despise the currency system. When people get any kind of power, wealth normally follows and few have any morals whatsoever. This normally provokes corruption and adulteration of any government system. Politicians that you see on TV are wrapped around a corporation's finger and cannot hope to succeed unless they get billions of dollars in funds...funds that can be used to aid the impoverished. Statistics claim that 1% of the world's population owns about 40% of the world's wealth. People state that the increase/decrease cycle of the stock market is "just normal". Out of all honesty, it is not; it's pure instability. Society tends to oversimplify these issues too much in textbooks and news reports. The sad parts include: people are roped into the system without choice, have the social Darwinist notion of 'survival of the fittest' implanted into their minds which causes the incentive for competition (a little competition is good for the strife toward success but too much can cause disorder), this inevidably leads to wars for power and resources-->the result: thoughtless and meaningless slaughter. Maturing with this system forces people to come to the conclusion that the only way to survive is to join the cycle. The endeavors to get ahead eventually wear them thin, and now we have a possible recession on our hands. Yes, it allows some freedom, or at least the thought of being free, but you cannot deny that even you (to the INTJs) get burnt out of the same wound constantly mending and reopening. You cannot deny that these gaps between the 'classes' are widening at a rate to the nth power. The most developed and the richest countries also have the highest depression and suicide rates. Not to mention that laws are placed to champion the profit over the people any day. China, the Soviet Union, Cuba, etc. are State Capitalists, not Socialists because a currency still existed and the elite class was present. They just replaced one upper class with another. This is the source of corruption...
Economically, I advocate Socialism...if it's done right.

[Radamisto]

I am an anarchocapitalist, so I want the smallest government possible: an inexistent one.

[Provoker]

Without a governement, there will be no laws, and without laws there will only be chaos for not every individual will react the same. That said, I see no issues with having a STRONG Government that is based on what people want and protect it's people.

First of all, there is no such thing as chaos. There is order to everything, just different types of order. In the Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes constructs an idea of what a 'state of nature' would look like. That is, a state wherein there is no over-arching authority to enforce laws and as a result something called 'natural law' prevails which affords people the right to self-preservation (i.e. I would be justified in attacking you pre-emptively if you got to close to my apple tree). The point is that there are always laws even if they are not formalized. In various parts of the world, including the US, there are Ghettos where police know not to go. Who then enforces the law when the govt/state don't intervene? The answer is gangs or self-appointed vigilante groups who band together to protect each other. So your statement is incorrect, there is evidence of law and order even in cases where the government/state are absent.

Because not all people "want" the same thing, therefore the more government gets involved, the more the minority will get shafted.

This is not necessarily true. In fact, many would argue that in an era of globalization the state has been weakened and as a result multinational corporations (MNCs) have an enourmous amount of power. As a result of neo-liberal reforms that were instituted in the Third World since the 80s we've seen privatization, deregulation, trade liberalization, cuts in social spending, governments selling off state assets, etc. In Argentina, for example, unemployment rose from 7% in 1990 to 20% by the new millenium. Who is going to step in and protect and economic and social interests of the people against the multinational corporations, especially when trade unions have been dismantled by corporate interests? It should come as no surprise that MNCs won't do this voluntarily. However, the state apparatus still embodies a great deal of power (even in an era of neoliberal globalism) and to protect the interests of minorities requires a bigger and stronger state.

Your argument is: the more govts get involved the more minorities get shafted. Yet there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that supports the opposite view: that the less the government gets involved the more minorities get shafted. For example, after the collapse of the Soviet Union what do you think happened to all that wealth that took Russians decades to accumulate and preserve? It was illegally auctioned off to few oligarchs who became billionaires over night. Meanwhile over half of the country slipped into poverty. Since then there has been little reinvestment in the country's infrastructure; Russians aren't living as long as they once did; the country's rich natural resources in oil and gas aren't being redistrubuted to the people (because they are ran by oligarchs), etc. The purpose of this example is to illustrate the point that a smaller role played by the government made the people of Russia worse off. So please use examples to support your claim.


The state only acts through coercion.

No. Coercion is one of many policy instruments that states use.

The free market is a far better solution..

A better solution for whom? We have the pills to cure polio and I'm am getting emails for viagara while people are dying of polio. This is a waste, and things like this can be remedied by effective planning, not providing financial credit to useless industries, and stronger governmental intervention in the economy. Plus, did you ever watch A Beautiful Mind? And if so recall the scene in the bar where John Nash (played by Russel Crowe) illustrates how Adam Smith was wrong and that in certain cases the most utility maximizing decision takes into account not only the individual but also the group. Moreover, I think the sentiment toward free market capitalism is changing: In Latin America there has been several leftist Presidents elected in the new millenium, such as Chavez, Gutierrez, Morales, etc. In the US the mood is changing and a democrat will likely win the next elections. The Battle of Seattle and other IMF riots and protests also illustrate that people are fed up with free market principles and don't like the economic instability it creates. In Russia, Putin has striked against some of the oligarchs like Mikhail Khordakovsky and this was supported by the Russian people who resent the oligarchs and jewish robber barrons. So not only do I disagree with your point in an analytical way, but your point "The free market is a far better solution" is becoming less and less popular to people around the globe.

[ArchonAlarion]

I don't believe anyone can prove to me that freedom is slavery, sorry.

It's either the tragedy of the commons (which will often lead to statism) or private property. Private property is far more utilitarian.

The crusades were widely popular.

[Ool]

I am an anarchocapitalist, so I want the smallest government possible: an inexistent one.

I’m with you. Let’s make it happen…!

And then I’m gonna kill you and take all your shit, but first things first…





Ool added to this post, 30 minutes and 53 seconds later...

I don't believe anyone can prove to me that freedom is slavery, sorry.

Whose freedom? (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

You’re still constrained by the laws of physics, after all. You still have to eat. In a place where food is scarce the only freedom you may have is the freedom to starve or to bow to a rather restrictive distribution system under which you can just barely survive. Or you can choose to go renegade and gamble on surviving on the expense of others’ lives while they do the same.

But whichever option you choose, you’re still a slave to your environmental conditions and to the fact that these are your only options.

It's either the tragedy of the commons (which will often lead to statism) or private property. Private property is far more utilitarian.

Except that no one lives a lot longer than about seventy years and the private property gets passed down from owner to owner to owner, causing a tragedy of the commons across time.

It’s built into the human condition, unfortunately.

The crusades were widely popular.

Nothing like getting rid of one’s surplus male population for a while, I guess. But what’s that got to do with anything…?

[ArchonAlarion]

I’m with you. Let’s make it happen…!

And then I’m gonna kill you and take all your shit, but first things first…

Because without the state, everyone turns into Gollum.

People will defend themselves as they do now. The police are not at your house 24/7. In places where the police are used today (like investigation, street patrols, or security guards) private companies would instead serve as "police." I really hope you can figure out on your own that as businesses they are voluntary and are subject to all the rules of supply and demand.



Ool added to this post, 30 minutes and 53 seconds later...



Whose freedom? (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

You’re still constrained by the laws of physics, after all. You still have to eat. In a place where food is scarce the only freedom you may have is the freedom to starve or to bow to a rather restrictive distribution system under which you can just barely survive. Or you can choose to go renegade and gamble on surviving on the expense of others’ lives while they do the same.

But whichever option you choose, you’re still a slave to your environmental conditions and to the fact that these are your only options.

Yeah, dems da breaks. We live in reality where resources are scarce. Too bad. That's how it is. No economic system will change that, but the free market gives people greater ability to improve their condition.



Except that no one lives a lot longer than about seventy years and the private property gets passed down from owner to owner to owner, causing a tragedy of the commons across time.

It’s built into the human condition, unfortunately.

Heh? You'll have to clarify for me.



Nothing like getting rid of one’s surplus male population for a while, I guess. But what’s that got to do with anything…?

Someone said that the freemarket is becoming less popular and socialism is more popular. So I gave an example of something that was widely popular, because of the greed of the nobility, the insanity of the clergy, and the brainwashed ignorance of the masses. Nothing has changed.

[Aronnax]

Government needs to be exactly big enough but no larger... how's that for a vague answer?

There are plenty of things that are easier to standardize though law or provide a significant public benefit but no individual wants to pay for. "Enlightened self interest" is all well and good until you realize that the "enlightened" ones just end up footing the bill for unenlightened ones. After all, the unenlightened ones still reap the benefit of the commons. Long term public planning fares poorly with just a market to guide it. Most people can't plan on a 50 or 100 year cycle but that's what roads, water and structures are designed around. The consumer's short memory in these kind of situations makes "true" market correction nearly impossible. Market corrections are efficient but you don't always want to wait for a correction or deal with the harsh consequences of a radical market adjustment.


Anarchism is inherently unstable because groups are stronger than individuals. Leave an anarchic system alone long enough and you'll end up with something that looks just like a collection of governments. The difference being that there's no guarantee of equal protection under law and the absence of representation makes violent rebellion more likely. Leaving a minimalist Democracy in charge allows the direction of the inevitable government to be controlled.

[sriv]

Government should be big, but not too powerful. Ideally, there should be a faster way to honestly vote and voting should happen more often with more educational input placed upon government in school.

A big government will promote unity, safety, and prosperity when used properly. Small government does not promote the previous. I agree with Aronnax. There are some things that individuals are not bright enough to deal withor plan about such as saving for retirement, and they must be propped up or else they will fall. If they fall, there may be a chain reaction leading to economic slump.
Elitism, in a way, is beneficial, but not when used exclusively.

Small government only worked in the past.

[foroneonly]

I prefer small government federally. However I do think that state governments should take on more responsibility and strength so that power is not centralized in DC. I prefer a horizontal power structure as opposed to a vertical one.

[Jakalwarrior]

Government should be big, but not too powerful. Ideally, there should be a faster way to honestly vote and voting should happen more often

Our current US gov was designed so that it can only be changed slowly because people are so darn fickle. Hence the lack of voting, electing representatives (also because mass voting wasn't practical) and the longish terms for some offices.

IMO. The biggest problem I have is not deciding what would be ideal, but what would be the best way to govern a bunch of fickle idiots without bending to their whims, but also while not abusing them and keeping their interests in mind.
Our method of government is actually pretty well thought out, it just has been given enough time and enough idiots to make it bloated and drag it down.

[sriv]

Our current US gov was designed so that it can only be changed slowly because people are so darn fickle. The biggest problem I have is not deciding what would be ideal, but what would be the best way to govern a bunch of fickle idiots without bending to their whims, but also while not abusing them and keeping their interests in mind.
Our method of government is actually pretty well thought out, it just has been given enough time and enough idiots to make it bloated and drag it down.

Yes, I agree the constitution was incredibly advanced for its time, but it has had its adjustments. Primaries, superdelagates, equal voting rights, etc.

True, people are very fickle. That is why I suggested for more government classes to explain why voting and staying on top of politics is so important. Beurocracy prevents some mistakes but prolongs others. Like Bush. I don't know why the hell we voted him in a second time. TWICE we put him in. omg. My disappointment in the US citizen is paramount.

[Ool]

Because without the state, everyone turns into Gollum.

People will defend themselves as they do now. The police are not at your house 24/7. In places where the police are used today (like investigation, street patrols, or security guards) private companies would instead serve as "police." I really hope you can figure out on your own that as businesses they are voluntary and are subject to all the rules of supply and demand.

So would they be like, the heavies collecting “protection money” from small store owners then…?

Yeah, dems da breaks. We live in reality where resources are scarce. Too bad. That's how it is. No economic system will change that, but the free market gives people greater ability to improve their condition.

I think that is sometimes true. I try to look at economy and the government more in a pragmatic fashion rather than a rigidly ideological one. I like to think of it along the lines of the internal workings of a car. You see, heat and pressure would be an analogy for the supply and demand that keep the whole thing going. But if the heat and pressure builds up in the wrong places then the whole thing breaks down. So you have to have radiators and cooling fans, dispersing the excess heat, and those are like the social services that keep parts of society from melting down from too much stress or deprivation. Of course if you overdo it or do it wrong then you may actually freeze the fuel line or something…

Also when you have a lot of fuel available you needn’t worry about your economy being too efficient. You can make it big and boxy and wasteful and let natural entropy take care of things. But the tighter the supply of energy gets the more sophisticated and small you have to design things and the more sensors, regulations, controls you have to introduce.

Also a car runs at optimal efficiency at a certain range of speed, and beyond that things get quite inefficient quite fast. And then there’s the problem of entropy, of things getting stuck, of maintenance requirements. The free market may work like a charm while certain resources are still in flux. But there may come a time when they are all divided up and there’s nothing left to go around of an essential resource, and suddenly the whole things comes to a halt because what is left suddenly becomes so valuable that no one wishes to trade it any more.

Lots of things can go wrong in a self-organizing system that you never thought could go wrong before…

Heh? You'll have to clarify for me.

The idea that our limited lifespan creates a tragedy of the commons over time? That was just a brainstorm of the moment, but one that, I think, has merit.

The idea is simply that because we have a much shorter lifespan than some of our possessions, such as land, we may only care about whether the land will provide us while we’re still alive. Then along comes the next generation, thinking the same. And the next, and the next… Each of them may overuse the plot because it will be future generations that get to feel it, not themselves.

And so our short lives may actually create a tragedy of the commons over time that wouldn’t exist if we knew we’d still be around in this place a thousand years hence…

Someone said that the freemarket is becoming less popular and socialism is more popular. So I gave an example of something that was widely popular, because of the greed of the nobility, the insanity of the clergy, and the brainwashed ignorance of the masses. Nothing has changed.

You’re thinking too much in black and white, right and wrong. Free markets are like the internal combustion in a car. Socialism is like the cooling system. A car needs both. An economy needs both. All you have to take care of is that the combustion doesn’t melt down your engine and that your cooling system isn’t so inefficient that it slows down the car to a crawl, sucking up most of the power…

[Thucydides]

"The" federal government? Which federal government are you talking about?