Socialist, and the dangers of government.

[Squilliam]

TheRealMafoo said:

Squilliam said:

One example of a country getting better when the government was given more power was pretty much every single one of them. See, some government is pretty much always better than no government you know police, military, enforcement of contracts, money, legal systems etc.

Why is it when I say I want a government with less control, people think I mean I don't want a government.

Germany under Hitler is a great example. Germany was doing poorly, so they gave all the power to the government. 

Hitler turned a lot of things around, but also took that power, and murdered 6 million people, and was the catalyst for 50 million more deaths.

I have no clue how you say that's making it better.

 

You gave an example of extreme authoritarianism and I gave an example of extremely liberalism, its fair to use both is it not? In any case it was also to get you to admit that some governance is better than no governance. If you take any extremity either liberalism and authoritarianism to their logical conclusions you reap a situation which is negative for a society or country. I bet if you disbanded every level of the U.S. government today, the U.S.A would likely be a third world country within 50 years as an example.

In every case in history, whenever a government has produced public goods such as a roading network the wealth and well being of that society has improved.

In every case in history, whenever a government has unified a stable currency for use by the people it has improved the efficiency of the economy. Yes this is dictated by the powers that be.

In almost every case in history, whenever a government has protected property rights and enforced contracts the well being of everyone in society has improved.

In every case in history whenever a government has instituted and paid for compulsary education for 5-10 year olds society has been improved by it.

In every case in history, whenever a government has instituted schemes to improve the health of the people, society has been improved by it. Yes, the eradication of smallpox would not have succeeded if it was run by private enterprise.

Within every large empire that I know of with decent surviving records, there has been instituted a form of social welfare for the poor. In the case of Rome it was free bread given out to prevent starvation. These are civilizations which survived for many hundreds of years.

So tell me, where do you draw the line between enough and too much government? Do you value personal safety below equality and the costs involved for instance? Theres a very clear distinction with egalitarian societies having a lower crime rate and the question being, are you willing to pay for that?