Free Market vs. the Nany State. voice yourselves in here

I don't get the Nannycrowd. I'm all about Free Markets. I grew up on the notion that only the strong survive. andyou had to work for yours. no easy road to success. just a road. make it happen. and guess what, I did that.

but I wanna hear why the Nannycrowd thinks that squatting for results is the way to go?

just sounds like a bunch of whiny babies...

 

Empirically, mixed economies have the highest average quality of life (Scandinavia, western Europe). Both extremes are suboptimal to centric pragmatism.

Of course it depends on how exactly you mix them.

 

The reason the US operates on the level of a nanny state is because it fights wars that it cannot afford to fight.

That's what has killed capitalism.

 

A nanny state is an oppressive state.

---

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
- Thomas Jefferson

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
- Thomas Jefferson

"When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe."
- Thomas Jefferson

"We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt."
- Thomas Jefferson

 

So we should just get rid so SS and medicare.....I agree that some programs and laws are highly disfunctional; however, our society does need some social programs and that does not make us a "nanny" state

 

There is a reason why the 10th Amendment is in place... So if a State wishes to adopt such methods they can do so.

 

stole my thunder. but thanks.

 

We still have the 10th Amendment in the Constitution for that.

 

megatron, when you reach 50% of households receiving a FEDERAL check each month, in the Country with the HIGHEST standard of living, you ARE a nanny State. What your calling "dysfunctional" are simply the methods used to increase that portion of the populace that for whatever reason, won't contribute.

For all practical purposes, there were NO social programs before the 1930's and only since the late 60's has it become an epidemic, leading to a dependency group programmed to think they need Government to get along.

Church's and Charitable Organizations have always been around, today could be as effective and unquestionably more efficient than ANY Government Agency, as they were throughout our history.

 

Although I don't know quite enough about the statistics and general economic outcomes of either choice to have a concrete opinion about which produces the highest quality of life, I can say that morally, I lean heavily towards free market.

As long as welfare programs exist, there will probably never be a surplus of money in our government. The supposed quality of life that welfare state activists claim they can produce might be nice for a while, but that wouldn't matter much if we spend ourselves into our graves.

Besides, I think it's ridiculous on a moral level. All of the Occupy groups moan about people that are born into certain circumstances, and that are using their resources, accusing them of acting "entitled," (at least that's what I hear screamed a lot) and then demand that they are entitled to a quality of life that the government owes them or something. What would you expect them to do? If someone's parents payed for them to attend private school, it's absurd of them to expect them to not utilize what they are given.

 

The reason we like government is because we actually like having a decent standard of living.
Social sedcuitry is 25% more efficient then private accounts
Medicare/governemnt health care is mroe then 40% more efficent
Government run utlities are 30% more efficient
the list goes on

 

its simple actually.....people want a free lunch....something for nothing!

 

We aren't noted for having a sense of balance. People aren't outraged when a SWAT unit invades a dairy farm and seizes, gasp, raw milk. People yawn when business are closed, employees out of work, over an endangered mouse.

I'm not in favor of no controls and I'm not in favor of controls for the sake of control which is what we have now.

I do think the government has an obligation to warn us and I'd like to see them start with the next election. "Warning: Voting for any of the dickheads is dangerous to your health."

 

I would like to see your sources for this.

 

Nonsense. Actually, worse than nonsense.

 

Why did anyone respond to this troll thread?
The title of it and the choices in the poll were a partisan troll setup.

If you want to try again and address the difference between a completely free market and a mixed economy, you can be taken seriously as being interested in the truth.
Right now, you are a troll.
Nothing more.

 

No need for a complex setup poll. I kept it simple.

You're more than welcome to voice where you stand if you don't fit any of the choices.

 

Troll.
You kept it simple allright.
Simple is as simple does.

 

What a charming naive way to put your own agenda in a poll. Quoting Jefferson like he was a writer of the Constitution is precious. There are ways to inject personal responsibility into entitlement programs and we should do it. We gave the Supreme Court the power to interpret the Constitution as they see fit, and they have. We gave Congress the power to make laws and acts, and they have. The people have decided that SS and Medicare are good things, some would like more, some much less. Elect one of you nutcases if you can, otherwise, you can see where the train is going so get used to it.

 

Funny that very few in the Great Depression subscribed to Hoover's sentiment too

 

I don't stand up for 4H very often, but for once I am. Don't attack the messenger. Post your rebuttal or take your happy ass somewhere other than this thread.

 

A load of rubbish. I bet you enjoy using governemt funded roads, airports, satelites, NASA, schools, The MILITARY, fire deparments, police etc.

 

All of which are part of the basic role of government. He's talking about nanny state government.

 

You are arguing semantics." Nanny state" government means nothing. It is simply a euphemism designed to cover up the role of govt.

Basic role of government is also arguable. This is the problem with conservatives they hate govt up until it means giving up those things they like. that, government provides.

Ask repubicans about roads and excuses and if they all be paid for by tolls instead of taxes and they have all manner of excuses why not.

Conservatives love talking about the constituion, but ask them to say what the constituion says regarding a full time army. They always have excuses to justify that too.

 

No I'm arguing about a description of a government who is ever growing in oppressive control and usurping the authority of the People and the Constitution.

Between ideologies sure, but now we're speaking of how you view man and how man should hold relationship with themselves and the government. I personally support freedom and believe that man is capable of governing his own and that the State has a better capability to govern and represent the People over who they have been elected to Serve.

The basic role of any government is to protect the People and sovereignty of the nation. I think we need to pull our forces back into the country...and place them along our borders and ports.