Really? Which era is that?

For the record, I haven't voted yet. And I'm not sure I will because there's good and bad in every era...I do love the Gilded Age though. Was that what were you thinking of?

50s

Yeah slavery could have been ended like it did in Europe without resorting to civil war.

Big, centralized government is a good thing. It can curb the excesses of the free market economy (which, as we can see, the tiny (by European standards) US government is failing to do with one of the crappiest social security systems, lowest taxes for the rich, absurdly expensive higher education and expensive health care in the western world).

Anyone who didn't vote for "1980-2000 End of the Century" has no knowledge of history. This was the ONLY time during (much of) which America had COMPLETE dominance over the world.

And is this a good thing? Methinks not, it only promotes neoliberalism and allowed for American imperialist aggression and support to the Zionist cause.

This topic is called "Greatest era in USA history?"...

Big government is the source of most of our problems we face today. A true free market is extremely efficient in resource management.

- Social security should not have been initiated in the first place...how would you feel if I took that cash in your pocket and gave it to some old guy down the street?
- Low tax for the rich AND for the poor and middle class in a small constitutional government with free market capitalism b/c there wouldn't be a need for high taxes since the government is so small.
- Higher education is very expensive nowadays (in the big government era we have right now). It would be cheaper in a free market since there would be no government subsidizing education on the premise that education is a right. Education is not a right.
- Healthcare is expensive now b/c everyone has to use health insurance. Before the advent of the widespread use of health insurance, healthcare was relatively inexpensive. Healthcare would be cheaper in a free market since there would be no government subsidizing healthcare on the premise that healthcare is a right Healthcare is not a right.

A big government managing the economy chooses the winners and losers (the rich and the poor) b/c the winners can have advantage over their competition by getting in bed with the government (i.e. lobbying congress for legislating laws that favor the lobbyists' corporations) rather than by producing a superior product/service. The big government is like a corrupt referree at a basketball game. The team that the referee favors would have greater advantage.

Look at Soviet Russia and see how their big centralized government worked out.

I recommend googling Ron Paul and reading up on some Austrian economics.

As much as I agree with your observations of the US in regards to our system of health-care and taxation of the wealthy,
our government is not "tiny", in any way. The multinational corporations are the real players behind the scenes here.

I wish for a small government that allows for individual choice, per libertarian ideals. The "free-market" here is not free.
It's all controlled and manipulated by the huge multinational corporations. There is nothing "free" about them at all.

I support limited government and the free market, but vehemently disagree with neo-Confederates. It may be hard to believe now, but there was a time when the federal government was too weak. And really anyone who thinks the Confederacy was some kind of template for limited government needs to do some more research. The Civil War was not the decisive turning point towards big, centralized government....the New Deal was (and then later, everything really went to hell with the Great Society).

HOW WOULD YOU FEEL IF YOU WERE STARVING ON THE STREET BECAUSE THERE WERE NO JOBS AND NO GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS?

Right-wingers are THE most selfish people on this planet - and the more right, the more selfish.

Even in a free society with free market capitalism there will be poor and homeless people. However, since the people are keeping more of what they earn (thanks to low taxes), charity and churches are the way to go to help these poor and homeless people.

How would you feel if I stole money from your wallet and gave it to some homeless bum on the street. That's basically what welfare is.

There would most likely be an abundance of jobs in a free market capitalist system.




The articles of confederation were good, but they needed some revision. A revised and improved Aritcles would be better than the Constitution, which was considered big expansion of government back in the revolutionary times.

What if there are no charities and churches? In your hypothetical free market capitalist system, that's very possible since everyone would be just as selfish as you.

If the money was being taken from everyone WHO COULD AFFORD IT (hence progressive taxation), I would "feel" that this is one of those things that distinguishes human civilization from the Darwinianism of nature - just as I do now, but to a lesser extent.

Why would there "most likely be an abundance of jobs in a free market capitalist system"? Employers and employees natually have unequal bargaining power. Thus, wages would quickly be driven so low that lower-end jobs would simply cease to exist - and the higher-end ones that remain would pay barely enough to meet people's needs, if that. You really don't have an idea of the horror of a real free market capitalist system.

No, the opposite is quite demonstrably true. Government welfare crowds out private charity. You're not worth the effort to prove this, so the mere assertion will have to suffice.

Only because you are jealous of rich people, do you believe that it is "civilized" to take more than an equal share from them.

It's extremely depressing that far-right parties - parties with similar views as those of the two of you - have taken over almost every country in the world.