Not so sure about that, STBLS.

I can agree that the government was too small to sustain the Army needed to kick the Canuks/English in the balls,
when they sacked us in 1812, however Mr. Lincoln's little war got this country on the start to the huge government that we have today, IMO:

He suspended Habeas Corpus

He instituted an income tax, under the Revenue Act of 1861, well before 1913

Started the National Bank Act

Started the Secret Service

Started United States Department of Agriculture

And of course set us on a precedence of the federal government usurping states rights.

I am, however, very glad that he was not allowed to preside over the new empire he helped to build.

Your American 'big government' is small. Get real. Never been to Europe, hey? If you think your government is big, you'd get a heart attack over here.

Perhaps it's efficient, but I hardly think the labourers of mid 19th century industrial slums cared much about that. Free market and tiny government allowed a small elite to hoard the majority of capital while the rest of the population suffered under poverty, disease and exploitation.

Efficient yes, beneficial to most of the people, definitely not. Before the 1880s/90s with the second industrial revolution which also introduced the first social security systems in Germany (over a century before the USA did the same) 2/3 to 90% of the average family's budget was spent on food, more so since children had to take care of their parents because pensions didn not exist.

Young children also had to work in factories. It was profitable to exploit them. It's a free market, so why not, right? Same for slavery.

Free market capitalism also allowed for the rise of colonialism which had pervasive effects, something which government intervention could have stopped:




If he's incapable of working himself or if he's older than 65 since beyond that age people should be able to enjoy what years they have left. A good pension system is a good thing. If someone has worked for 40 years, he's done his service to society. I don't get why someone who earns 1 million a year can't pay 60% taxes. He'd still be left with 400 grand, something which I'd sign for immediately.



The broadest shoulders should carry the heaviest burden. The money is needed to prove fully free education and healthcare.



You're clearly misinformed. Before subsidies, higher education was virtually unaffordable over here thanks to free market workings since the capital owning elites that arose thanks to free trade made sure they held a monopoly on the system, it went against their interests to let everyone have access to higher education. As for education not being a right, international law would disagree with you:





Free market working was introduced in the Netherlands' healthcare system. Costs went up, efficiency went down. You know why they can do this? The healthcare sector has a monopoly on health care as the term implies so no-one has anyone else to turn to. The sector has complete control over all healthcare and can do with the prices as they please. Only recently was the maximum price of dental healthcare lifted by the Dutch government and prices skyrocketed to the point that insurers were unwilling to cover them completely.



This is a typical American argument which is unfounded. The government must be corrupt, evil, out to curb our rights and freedoms blablabla. It's not. If it were, Europe would have descended into state capitalism long ago. It hasn't thanks to democratic procedure which allows the public to savagely punish any political party that governs badly, especially in a system of proportional representation.



Look at France and see how their big centralize government worked out. Big centralized government isn't the same as Stalinism (and no, I don't consider the USSR or any other state that calls itself communist to actually be communist; they are state capitalist).

Hey Onkel! You didn't answer the question about the OP!

There should be no free public education and/or government subsidized healthcare in a free society. It is not within the realm of the federal government nor does the Constitution allow it. The roles of the US federal government: Defend the borders, mint coins, handle the postal service, and protect individual rights.

Teachers in the public education system have no incentive to become better teachers b/c they get paid anyways if they do good or bad.

If the unconstitutional bureaucracies and overseas military operations of our current federal government are ceased, there would be no "burden" on anyone nor would we need an income tax.



Europe may be more socialist than America, but America is still big government. It is sticking your head in the sand to think otherwise. Bailing out banks, failed corporations, and europe while initiating countless undeclared wars, policing the world, and stripping citizens of individual liberties are acts of big government.

Hong Kong is the best example of a free market economy working at its best. Though hampered after being absorbed by China, it's still a shining example of what a free market economy can do. And no, there's no child labor there.



You might be confusing free market with crony capitalism. Back in the old days, students could get a job and use that to pay for college tuition without taking out loans. Just ask Ron Paul.

Don't give me that UN crap. UN is a corrupt organization (remember the oil-for-food program?) supporting the elites' dream of a new world order while violating its member nations' sovereignty (via UN resolutions). The declaration of independence says that we have certain unalienable rights: life, liberty, and property/pursuit of happiness. It didn't say life, liberty, property/pursuit of happiness, and education. The US constitution does not authorize the federal gov's role over education either.

The government is a crappy way to provide "free" stuff for the people b/c they do not produce anything...they just take money from its citizens and redistribute it.

Looks like the mainstream media and the indoctrination of citizens done by the public education system are a lot stronger than I thought.



Monopolies are hard to form in a free market system. Monopolies are cultivated by government intervention in the economy, which creates barriers to entry for new potential businesses and creates unfair advantages for the monopolies via corrupt legislation.



Yes the government loves you. Big Brother loves you. There's nothing going wrong when Big Brother wiretaps your phones, fluoridates your water, assassinate and imprison indefinitely dissidents, and censors speech....he's just trying to protect you and keep you safe.

Europe is already in a shithole while America has to wipe their sorry socialist asses once again (by bailing them out). And democracy is overrated. It's basically mob rule. No point to it if the masses are brainwashed. And even if they're not, there's still no point to it if the people counting the votes are corrupt and do the counting behind closed doors so they can manipulate poll results. Democracy is effective though if we have a true republic, where it is rule by law, not rule by majority, the few, or one person.

Europe is home of one of the worst psychopathic people who are secretly controlling our world today (and the governments are their puppets), namely the Rothschild Family, the international banksters, Rockefeller Family, Bilderberg, etc. All the more reason not to trust governments and keep them small so they can't do damage.

Looks like public-education-induced indoctrination is a lot stronger than I thought. I don't blame you though. You were taught and conditioned in school (in a subtle way) to blindly follow the government while having the illusion of free choice.

.....



Stalinism, socialism, and big central government have one thing in common: a few psychopathic people thinking they're smarter than everyone else and think they can engineer a utopia.



Social market economy is the middle ground between socialism and free market. Ever came to mind that Austria's success came from the free market elements of its economy rather than the socialistic elements? Now if it became pure free market then it would definitely become the next Hong Kong.



No one would be happy to give 60% of their money. Trickle-up economics have already been disproven b/c every time the rich get taxed they throw tantrums (figuratively) and start laying off workers. So taxing the rich hurts the middle class the most.

And don't be fooled by warren buffett saying he'd be willing to pay higher taxes. He said that to make himself look good and increase his holdings.



Employees do have power in a free market. Thanks to little to no barriers to entry for new businesses, employees would have an abundance of options to choose from. If they don't like what an employer is doing with them, then they can quit and apply for another employer. Free market is all about freedom of choice.

It's because I don't know which to choose. All of them seem to have something about them I don't like.

1) If there is no free education and healthcare, how are people supposed to pay for them? The elites wil always make sure that the costs stay the same to prevent competition from arising. They always do unless someone tells them to fucking stop it.
2) Not where I come from. In our country, at least in high school, students can complain about teachers. If the list of complaints is along enough, it'll generally lead to him being reviewed. Besides that, teachers in general are judged by the results of their students and are encouraged by the state to work harder through bonuses.
3) And those are bad things? Without them, the economic crisis would get even worse than it already is. And bailing out Europe? Bollocks. We're not the ones who nearly went bankrupt last year. It's Germany, the largest European economy, that's doing the heavy lifting in saving Greece. Oh, and I'm hardly stripped of my liberties: as big as our government is, it's been bound by a liberal constitution since 1848 as a response to royal absolutism, i.e. no majority in parliament = law does not pass, elections are compulsory every four years (regardless of whether there's an economic crisis or not, our constitution doesn't allow for rule by decree except perhaps in war or something).
4) A conspiracy theory with no support. Corruption exists everywhere. You think there'd be no corruption in a free market? Think again. Even if there was corruption in the oil-for-food program, it sure as hell fed the Iraqi people. What's more important: battling corruption or preventing people from dying due to starvation?
5/6/7) Reeks of conspiracy theories with no solid proof, typical Republican Tea Party nonsense. Any evidence to back up that Europe is run by a Judeo-plutocratic elite? Methinks not. I'm not indoctrinated and sure as hell don't blindly follow our government. If anything, I hate the current Dutch government and I'm quite vocal about that to others.
8) The French Fifth Republic would disagree with you. Highly centralized, yes, psychopaths that wish to engineer a utopia, no.
9) Hong Kong is the exception to the rule. Laissez faire economies generally stumble from one crisis to the next.
10) Sweden has a 57% tax rate and has not experienced this development. On the contrary, Sweden has consistently scored 'very high' on the Human Development Index and low on the Gini coefficient (lower than the US does). In terms of GDP per capita Sweden is eighth in the world while the USA is fifteenth (according to the IMF). The Netherlands is in a similar situation with a 52% top tax rate and yet a higher score in terms of GDP per capita. We were doing fine until AMERICA fucked up.

1. Where I live, privatization has not lowered costs. See for example public transportation which is managed by a few different companies over here in the Netherlands; there is no discernable competition. Some goes for healthcare, no discernable competition. Quality went down due to privatization as well. As for home schooling, great way to socialize children with other children.

2. Doesn't look like it from where I'm sitting. I know plenty of people who fail tests/exams etcetera and none of this has happened, ever.

3. If those banks and companies had been allowed to go bankrupt, all of their employees would have been out of work. That would lead to lower purchasing power, followed by lower production, followed by more lay-offs. As for the Ron Paul article, I can see 'Zionist bankers loot America' in the background. As much as I'm a critic of Zionism, I can't take this guy seriously. It was that kind of thinking that led to nazism.

As for the rest, my country does not have rectum probing. Neither does the law permit the detainment of people without due judicial review. We're not the ones running Guantanamo Bay, you people are. The fact that Americans can't run a 'big government' properly doesn't mean we can't.

4. So it's basically OK for some people to starve because you Americans are a bunch of cheapskates .

5/6/7. You think the school system would be better without a school bell ringing, when children can choose whether they want to go to classes or not? An 8 year old can hardly make that decision so order has to exist. As for workers being churned out, you're proving my point that capitalism is a bad thing: a minority controls the means of production, the majority is a proletariat.

My government hardly wants government intervention anyway. It's a coalition of liberals, Christian Democrats and Islamophobes who privatize the shit out of everything and make budget cuts that are destroying purchasing power at the moment.

8) Are you a psychiatrist/psychologist? Have you ever met any of these politicians? If the answer to either question is no then you're hardly qualified to judge whether they're psychopaths or not.

9) Free market always lead to crony capitalism in the end. Eventually, some do better than others and manage to accumulate capital. And money is power. A true free market could only work if humans were perfect which they're not (which is the same reason why communism doesn't work either). All we can do is to prevent a tiny elite from hoarding too much wealth. Question: do you think it's good that 1% of Americans controls nearly 50% of the country's wealth?

To much free market leads to crisis, always, as Kondratieff has demonstrated. Do you notice in the image below that crisis always occurs in times that liberalism was strong and government intervention was weak?


10) Still doesn't change that Sweden's and the Netherlands' inhabitants are on average wealthier.

THIS! This is THE main point that proponents of the free market fail to grasp.

Yes, if the government is left unchecked and unrestrained.

1-10) http://objection.mrdictionary.net/go.php?n=5662912

No, if the accumulation of wealth by a certain elite group is left unchecked and unrestrained. You point to Hong Kong, I point to mid nineteenth century Britain where the state was fairly small and industrial capitalists could accumulate wealth without limits while the working classes suffered under disease, poverty, long workdays, exploitation of children, a dangerous work environment etc.

In a true free market these would return: there is an enormous supply of labour so wages are naturally going to be low; safety restrictions, meh, not needed, labour is replaceable; child labour, meh, children are just short, doesn't mean they can't work; proper housing, meh, the proletarians breed like rabbits so if one of them dies due to the conditions in the slums, who cares, there'll be another one to replace him.

This is a situation that is still for all to see in the Third World where the government is virtually absent. African governments are very weak, thereby allowing the mechanisms of free market to regulate the economy. The result is that a tiny elite is rich while the majority of the population gets to rot in its own filth. Thanks to lack of regulation, the majority of the world remains poor.

This is corporative neo-imperialism at its finest, completely unchecked by the state. Companies like Shell (which gets oil from Nigeria) and producers of clothing that employ child labour are no better than the British East India Company was. If unchecked, this is what the free market leads to.

1) Regarding your supply and demand statement, it does not hold when there is unequal bargaining power between the two sides - which there is between employees and employers, as I already said.
2) A globalized free market would work in the way you describe only if every country in the world adopted it completely. Otherwise, companies would simply cease to hire workers in the developed free market world altogether (why pay more when you can pay less elsewhere?), and very soon the entire world would be third-world (and not just in economic terms).

1) If a worker is unsatisfied, he can just quit and join another company. Plenty of options due to unbridled competition in a free market.

2) Does every country outsource to third-world countries? The ones that don't overdo that have handled the problem of labor unions and provided an economic environment in their country that would be attractive for domestic employers to hire in.

1) You have to be in a position to compete in order to do that. Some people are by nature better at what they do than others. A true free market is nothing more than social darwinism or anarcho-capitalism, survival of the fittest.

2) No country in the world is a true free market. In a true free market government would be absent because the mechanisms of the free market are supposed to handle everything.