| | I think you guys are having a linguistic breakdown. What's all this talk of big government and reducing the size of government? Since when did the size of government matter?
It all sounds very similar to those dreaded liberals who lambaste 'big' business and 'big' oil and 'big' anything. Stop falling for that garbage guys. The size of something is not what matters. Is the fact that a business is huge any reason to fear it? If not, then why the terror at 'big' government?
Because it is an exceedingly stupid organizational principal, incongruous with any principal, including the principal of sustainability of government, but other more important principals as well. Such as, freedom, and avoidance of catastrophic systematic failure.
The principal is the same one that once made the concept of 'monopolist' largely agreed to be one to be avoided, even, inhibited by law.
It is the same principal that makes 'All Your Eggs In One Basket' a stupid idea.
It is the same principal that makes 'OneSizeFitsAll' not.
It is the same principal that makes 'Single Point of Failure' a terrible goal for any system design.
It is precisely the same principal that nature has led bridge designers to construct suspension bridge cables like this
--- many cables in parallel, and not a single point of failure 'bar' like this
Because 'Why not just make one big bridge cable 'it'? is a stupid idea, prone to single point of failure.
Look what just happened to our economies. (It's the economies, stupid.) They've been abused by treating them as an 'it.' That used to be called 'totalitarianism.' 400,000 Americans died fighting it. (Why?)
In court case after court case, and even USSC case, 50 sets of state banking and lending regulations were swept aside(suspension bridge cables running in parallel)and replaced by a single point of failure federal model, imposed from above(a single 'rod'). What used to be a smart organizational principal -- balanced federalism -- was replaced by a hubristic, clearly stupid, Penguin-armed constructivist idea: massively centralized single point of failure control. Monopolists with guns. The flaws in the single point of failure regulatory model enabled a failure on a national scale. 50 sets of side by side state banking and lending regulations would never have spontaneously self aligned to provide a systematic nationwide failure. Without massive federal intervention in our economies, and the systematic constructivist attempt to regulate them as if they were 'The Economy,' none of what just happened would have ever made it past P8 of the paper.
That is why 'big government' is a massively stupid idea, to be inhibited at all costs.
Monopolies running loose in a free nation do not suddenly become good ideas simply by handing them guns.
Look at the Sears Tower. It is not 'a tower.' It is nine towers bundled, side by side. That is what makes the system strong, like what we would like our systems of governance to be, as well as our economies. Strong, because they are not one single point of failure thing.
The phrase is, "United we stand." Not "United it stands."
Where is the 'we' in the present totalitarian lurch to the 'it' of 'the Economy' running?
regards,
Fred
And, most importantly, because PolitSci majors, economists, social scientists, and the other flotsam that make up our political class are largely f'n idiots singularly unqualified to run anything, especially the nation.
(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 10/03, 12:55pm)
|
|
