Originally posted by The Transhumanist
reply to post by dizzie56
When has any government program/regulation/whatever turned out well for the collective and if so, how?
The old cry of "the government never does anything right" isn't entirely accurate. The military, the FDA, the CDC, the USPS, the police, the fire departments, the highway system and the FAA all come to mind. As does France's healthcare system. (rated number 1 in the world by the WHO) This doesn't mean the U.S. government could necessarily do healthcare right, but I think we could get pretty close if we attempted to emulate their system. Denmark seems to be doing just fine with their socialized higher education. In fact, they were previously rated the happiest country in the world. Also you could argue that some welfare programs, at least food stamps, do what they are meant to do. Sure it's not perfect, but nobody in America is unwillingly starving to death and that's a pretty good thing.
But there are many, many, many mistakes that the gov has made with the above said programs. Yes, they make mistakes just as all men do, but because they get voted into office does that mean that they are allowed to make decisions for other people at the heads of industry? I could probably point out alot more mistakes that the gov has made in the above programs than the amount of good that they have done to them. Im not saying that all of them should be run solely by the private industries, the military is a prime example of that not being the case. But its also a case of where the gov has screwed up. They send off people to fight our battles but then they ill equip them. They have play politics and chess with our soldiers lives with no regards other than getting that big dinner/fundraiser at the end of the day. Obama not making a decision of whether to pull out or send the requested troops for what, at least a month now, is a prime example of the lack of vested interest that politicians actually have in what they regulate. They dont care, plain and simple. Their only worry is how much face time they get as well as some change in their pocket.
I do realize that we cant let companies become to big to fail. But how is that achieved? Where is the line drawn? If we make over $100k or $100m? Eventually, like all things in gov, the bottom line gets closer and closer. You mention Denmark as an example. They have not even a close amount of people living in their country as we do. Im willing to bet that if we gave the states the right to create their own public health OPTION (thats the key word the dems are forgetting these days), some states would bite. Those that do would be a better comparison to Denmark. If and when that happens, we can revisit that argument.
Im not for somebody just going in there and deregulating the whole country at their will and just lettin loose. As someone stated above, that is called anarchy and it wouldnt be a good thing. It does need to be done in a sliding scale so to speek in order for the little guys to get in. But if the little guy ends up making it big because the people like his product more than the competions, then do we go and regulate him back to the stone age? What about Microsoft? Gates started as a nobody and his product is now used everywhere. Its easy and pretty user friendly. He suceeded at what he did and the people like his product. What if his company would cease to make software, updates, or install anything on new comps. They go out of business. Do we look back and say, gee, maybe we shoulda regulated him more so not so many people used his product?
Lets be honest, this is what it comes down to. The people like a product, they buy it, the owner makes money, and then the company gets bigger. How do we regulate him to where he is not to big to fail if the people like his product so much that it is the only one that they buy or if he even has a majority share in the market? Do we tell people, no, you cant buy that because he is to big? Do we stop him from selling the product? Or, if and when the company starts to fail due to bad investment decisions, do we let it fail and learn from the mistakes and start over. Maybe piece the company out in bankruptcy court. Maybe we the people have to deal with a couple years of hardship, but we dont have to bailout the company and we can still go about our business.
Whenever I hear "government regulation", my immediate thought is, "Oh great, what now?" From lightbulbs to just the hiring of the government workers themselves, I dont see where government has done to much good. To me the gov is there really for one major thing and one major thing only, to use the military to defend the country. Not tell me I can no longer use and incodecent lightbulb; not tell me that I now have to start paying for somebody elses health insurance when I can barely afford mine; not tell me that the guy that just molested the girl in the next county over is gonna get a light sentence but the father who caught him and beat him up is goin to jail for longer; not tell me that I am a nazi becauuse I believe that the politicians are going about things the wrong way; not tell me that I cant own a gun. Im tired of being told what I cant do. How about allowing me to figure it out on my own? If I make a mistake, I make a mistake. After I fall, hopefully I can get back up but if not, its just part of the game and everybody knows the risk before they take that first step.
