Penn Jillette is a smart man...

[geni]

Don't recall my history books saying anything about the governments in Europe during the late 1930's and early 1940's being too small to oppose Hitler, just lacking the political will to do so initially. And correct me if wrong but wasn't the whole threat that Hitler and Russia posed due to large governments where the state controlled everything?

A vital test of any goverment system is how well it can survive interactions with any other system. Well unless you are buying into communist/anarchist world wide revolution rubish.

Neither do large governments.

Actualy they can when they want to.

Neither do large governments

Ever check the literacy rates in the USSR compared to small goverment african states say? Getting every kid a basic education is one thing goverments with enough resources are fairly good at.

neither do large governments

They do better job than anyone else.

neither do large governments.

Again they do a better job than anyone else.

 

[Lonewulf]

Government is one of those things that Libertarians treat, in the opposite way that the average woo treats horoscopes or fortune telling.

The average woo focuses on the hits instead of the misses, and proclaim it always works.

Libertarians focus on the misses instead of the hits, and proclaim that governments fail or are useless in the issues brought up above.

 

[Cleon]

Something tells me the pumping up of Ron Paul by none other than Penn Jillette won't stop idiot Republicans and retard Democrats from bashing those of us who think more individual freedoms and less government is, in general, a good thing, but the whole article is a good read.

If your political views lead you to conclude that the people who do not share them are "idiots" and "retards," then your political views are most likely wrong.

 

[Lonewulf]

If your political views lead you to conclude that the people who do not share them are "idiots" and "retards," then your political views are most likely wrong.

Ad hominem! You're stating that just because someone's a jerk, his political standpoint is wrong.

Of course, it's still wrong, and he's still a jerk, but still!

 

[cwalner]

A vital test of any goverment system is how well it can survive interactions with any other system. Well unless you are buying into communist/anarchist world wide revolution rubish.

which says nothing to the original claim that small governement would not have protected us from Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. I still find that argument not only uncompelling bout counterproductive since the danger that is claimed we needed to be protected against are the two greatest examples from the 20th century of large government

Actualy they can when they want to.

so can small governments, which makes this an issue of political will, not size of government. Furthermore, at this time in the US there seems to be very little political will in our big government to protect us from oligarchies and monopolies.

Ever check the literacy rates in the USSR compared to small goverment african states say? Getting every kid a basic education is one thing goverments with enough resources are fairly good at.

In the US education is primarily the responsibility of the local and state governments, not a large federal government. The US also has a 99% literacy rate. Again this is more a function of culture and economic base. Industrialized countries tend to have higher literacy rates than agrarian econimies because it is more needed for that economy. Industrialized countries also tend to have larger governments than agrarian ones because of the needs of the economy. Therefore while there is a correlation between government size and literacy, It is not a cause-effect relationship.

They do better job than anyone else.

evidence? this also seems to be more a function of politcal will than government size. While I grant that the EPA saw some cutbacks during recent Republican administrations, This had nothing with them actually being small government administrations because they were not. The federal government continued to grow just as much under Reagan and Bush (both H.W. and W.) as it did under Clinton and Carter. This is why Libertarians don't consider Republicans as a small government party despite thier rhetoric.

Again they do a better job than anyone else

again, Evidence? and as counterclaim, our big government FDA in the US sure did a stellar job of protecting us against the dangers of Vioxx. In Europe many of the big governments there allow Homeopathy to be distributed by thier national health plans despite overwhelming evidence against thier efficacy.

 

[geni]

which says nothing to the original claim that small governement would not have protected us from Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. I still find that argument not only uncompelling bout counterproductive since the danger that is claimed we needed to be protected against are the two greatest examples from the 20th century of large government

Yup. If small goverments cannot effectively deal with large goverments they can expect their interests to be trampled on.

so can small governments, which makes this an issue of political will, not size of government. Furthermore, at this time in the US there seems to be very little political will in our big government to protect us from oligarchies and monopolies.

Have you any idea how large a goverment it takes to have suffient economic control to prevent monopolies and oligopolies?

In the US education is primarily the responsibility of the local and state governments, not a large federal government.

The level of goverment has nothing to do with it's size.

The US also has a 99% literacy rate. Again this is more a function of culture and economic base. Industrialized countries tend to have higher literacy rates than agrarian econimies because it is more needed for that economy. Industrialized countries also tend to have larger governments than agrarian ones because of the needs of the economy. Therefore while there is a correlation between government size and literacy, It is not a cause-effect relationship.

You run into the problem of all these not very industialsed comunist countries such as Cuba (heh poland doesn't exactly have US levels of industialisation either) racking up very high literacy rates.

evidence? this also seems to be more a function of politcal will than government size. While I grant that the EPA saw some cutbacks during recent Republican administrations, This had nothing with them actually being small government administrations because they were not. The federal government continued to grow just as much under Reagan and Bush (both H.W. and W.) as it did under Clinton and Carter. This is why Libertarians don't consider Republicans as a small government party despite thier rhetoric.

Compare polution levels produced by the oil industry in massive goverment norway to say nigeria.

again, Evidence? and as counterclaim, our big government FDA in the US sure did a stellar job of protecting us against the dangers of Vioxx.
In Europe many of the big governments there allow Homeopathy to be distributed by thier national health plans despite overwhelming evidence against thier efficacy.

It's cheaper than other placebos.

Still the classic case is the less regulated "supliments" industry. While most of the stuff there is pretty much inactive and thus less likely to be harmful we still find stuff killing people and it keeps creeping back onto the market where as Vioxx is off the market and a fair amount of risky stuff never made it onto the market.

 

[WildCat]

If only Paul wasn't such a nut, right, RadioactiveMan?

And that's the problem. Even Ross Perot looks competent next to Ron Paul and Bob Barr, which is why he got more votes from people fed up with the Dems and the GOP than any of those nut cases ever will.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Libertarian utopia is just a plutocracy by any other name.

If Shanek was still here, your statement would have started a hissy fit.


But it is true.

 

[technoextreme]

He's not really as smart as people would like to say he is in politics. Sad, but..

True especially when you see him doing interviews about politics with Glenn Beck who openly stated that they want the government to be on the verge of collapse.

 

[Ausmerican]

Wasn't there a thread here a while back where one of the attendees at TAM asked Penn what his woo woo beliefs were and he admitted it was his devotion to Libertarian politics? I take woo woo to mean something that you believe in for no rational reason without evidence to back it up. Penn IS a smart man, but this is his self confessed blind spot. Much like his unreasoning dislike of Gore is his blind spot on GW.

 

[RandFan]

I think politics, particularly party politics is woo. I sometimes can't stomach this forum because it is full of otherwise skeptical and critical thinking people who routinely spout woo.

Yes, I include myself but I realize that and I do try hard. My problem with a number of skeptics on this forum is they don't try very hard. The number of people that buy into the notion that one party is inherently better than another is astounding.

Oh well. It is what is and I love tautologies. I also love politics. God help me I love it so.

 

[technoextreme]

The number of people that buy into the notion that one party is inherently better than another is astounding.

Hey I am an independent. I think both parties have their advantages and stupid moments. I swing so wildly on the political spectrum depending on the issue.

 

[RandFan]

Hey I am an independent. I think both parties have their advantages and stupid moments. I swing so wildly on the political spectrum depending on the issue.

I like swingers. Would you like to go out for coffee?

 

[NorthMass]

I don't see anything wrong with a much smaller government, maybe not the size a hard-core libertarian wants, but still a much smaller government. Don't get rid of departments like the FDA necessarily, but scale them down so the free markets have more control, and with much less government spending+much lower taxes, the economy will prosper.

And that's the problem. Even Ross Perot looks competent next to Ron Paul and Bob Barr, which is why he got more votes from people fed up with the Dems and the GOP than any of those nut cases ever will.

How is Ron Paul a nut? I consider the idea of drastically cutting back the government's power so we don't have such a high budget a good one. This will help get rid of the deficit which is eating away at the value of our dollar, and it is a much better idea than most candidates who propose INCREASING the size of the government which will lead to more spending and more inflation. We have so much debt, over nine trillion offically and many trillions more when you factor in medicaid and social security benefits we promised, and Ron Paul is one of the few people talking about it.

 

[cwalner]

Yeah, and Ron Paul was spouting that 'nutty' idea of not getting involved in Iraq even before we invaded. He clearly doesn't know what he is talking about.

 

[Suddenly]

Are there any Libertarians who aren't economically well-off?

Michael Badnarik was a telemarketer hustling spare change by holding himself out as a constitutional expert and charging for classes when the LP nominated him for President in 2004.

The anti-government wing of the LP is full of not-well off people that blame the federal government (usually within some set of conspiracy theories) for their woes. Badnarik is one of the more rational members of this wing, but this is similar to being the best professional football team in Alaska...

 

[Suddenly]

How is Ron Paul a nut?

For me, he earned that title for good when he wrote a glowing recommendation of Michael Badnarik's Good to be King as a book that children should read to learn about the constitution.

The only good thing about that book is that it is one of the more rational and well written works advocating common anti-government conspiracies and wingnut beliefs about the constitution and American legal history in general. It is still a wildly stupid, and in some parts blatantly dishonest, piece of work though.

I also find the general libertarian assumption that cutting government spending is an absolute good rather silly though. Sometimes government can use resources to benefit the common good in ways private industry can not do. Sometimes it is wasteful. On balance, it does more harm than good in ways so intrinsic to modern life that most people take it for granted.

I wouldn't call Paul a "nut" based on his views on federal spending. As silly as they are in my opinion, it is at least rational. His endorsement of the kind of crap in Badnarik's book is a different thing altogether. It could be that he doesn't believe that stuff, but then he is a nut for being a wildly reckless peddler of misinformation for political gain. Which is worse is a toss-up.

 

[jimbob]

I used to be a libertarian until I realized that less government and more individual freedoms was a paradox. You can't have freedom unless you have a government powerful enough to protect it. Otherwise, another party will ALWAYS fill the vacuum. The flip side of that of course is that a government power enough to protect freedom is often times a government power enough to be a threat to freedom.

Indeed.

I am in favour of economic freedom, but that means "freedom form" unfair oppression.

If you are in favour of sminiscule governmental interference in economics, what is wrong with haveing strong unions providing a counterbalancing collective power to the corporations?

Certainly many free marketeers I have come across seem to think that large corporations are "good" but large unions are "bad".

I'd prefer a democratically elected government to control the excesses of both.

 

[gdnp]

I don't see anything wrong with a much smaller government, maybe not the size a hard-core libertarian wants, but still a much smaller government. Don't get rid of departments like the FDA necessarily, but scale them down so the free markets have more control, and with much less government spending+much lower taxes, the economy will prosper.

Why don't we start with deregulating the mortgage market? I'm sure it would run much more efficiently without government interference.

 

[Ziggurat]

Ever check the literacy rates in the USSR compared to small goverment african states say? Getting every kid a basic education is one thing goverments with enough resources are fairly good at.

Very bad comparison. The problem with African governments is not that they are too small, but that they are far too corrupt. Making them bigger would not (and does not) help.