A Good Government is a Government That Gets Nothing Done
Jawohl
Side Score: 3
|
 |
No Way
Side Score: 7
|
|
|
|
|
No arguments found. Add one!
|
Do you have an argument to make? Such little syntax to your "argument" that I had to read it several times to figure out what you were trying to say, and have come to the conclusion that you don't really know what you are trying to say. Before insisting that we'd be in a state of anarchy!!! you ought to elaborate on why that would be bad. If a government can get nothing done how are they to tax and fee you? Side: Jawohl
you don't really know what you are trying to say I know exactly what I am trying say. you ought to elaborate on why that would be bad. I don't need to. You asked if it would be the optimal form of government. Even assuming anarchy is the best form of government, any government with taxation is not. So anarchy is better than anarchy with taxation. Unless you are trying to argue that giving a large portion of your income to an entity that will do nothing with it is a good thing. I'm surprised you would think that. If a government can get nothing done how are they to tax and fee you? Taxation is not an action of the government directly. You have to send your taxes to the government. They don't come to your house demanding them. And if you believe this, why would you create this debate? There have been countless debates on whether Anarchy is the best form of government (if it can be considered such). You essentially made the question herder to decipher and presented it as an original idea. Side: NO WAY
1
point
The best examples of rapid economic growth have been due to their government policies. Think of the UK or US in the 1800's, South Korea, Japan, China, Northern Europe, there are numerous examples from history. Whereas both of the largest depressions have been brought about by free market policies. At the very least, you must be able to see that the statement isn't always true. Free markets are often good (especially for those who are already rich), but they're hardly the only answer needed. Side: NO WAY
Economic growth is temporary; the result is what we are now in, which may continue indefinitely. Sound economic policy is best, and by sound I mean an economic policy in which the government spend in the millions, maybe low billions, and most definitely not in the tens of trillions. Think of the UK or US in the 1800's, South Korea, Japan, China, Northern Europe, there are numerous examples from history. I am thinking about them, and I don't see the parallel. Whereas both of the largest depressions have been brought about by free market policies. About which two are you thinking? The Great Depression I should imagine; which is the other? How about the Depression of 1921? It was far, far more "depressing" than the Great depression, yet completely sound, free market principals were adhered to and the economy got back on its feet in a year. The last fifty years - hundred, but who is counting? - have seen a decline in the "free" market and a rise in socialism and has also seen the greatest economic damages. Free markets are often good (especially for those who are already rich) You've fallen prey to a common misconception. but they're hardly the only answer needed. You'd prefer totalitarianism? Side: Jawohl
1
point
The UK in the 1800s repeatedly stole technology from other countries, specifically in its manufacturing industry. It banned the transfer of skilled workers, by forcing people to lose their citizenship if they were away for more than 6 months. Government also monopoly rights to the East India Trading Company, which was the most successful trading company of its time. US had high international tariffs. It was largely isolationist for a long period of time, until its economy had grown to a point where it could flourish on the international market. South Korea grew from almost nothing to a developed economy in about 40, 50 years, through nationalized firms, international tariffs, a closed market. China is famous for doing something very similar, it has simply not reached the point where it can open itself up to pure free trade yet. Finland wouldn't even accept international investment until recently I think, maybe the 70s? Not sure. Mexico had a 7% gdp per capita growth rate in the 60s, I believe, which slowed down to about 2 after it accepted free trade fully. Since NAFTA, it's slowed even further. The current repression, at least partially caused by deregulation in the American financial sector. And I would strongly disagree that the last 100 years have shown a decline in the free market. The point is, history has shown many times that free market, deregulation, and non interventionist government policies may be preached, but they are not necessarily the most effective method of economic growth, or development. You've fallen prey to a common misconception. In how free markets are good for the rich? It allows their firms greater markets, whilst safe in the knowledge that LEDCs have no firms to rival them. Free markets allow a fair playing field, but it is a playing field between toddlers & giants. You can see this in how inequality has greatly increased, both between citizens, and between countries. It makes sense, but that doesn't mean it's right. You'd prefer totalitarianism? Hardly what I was preaching. To me, a mixed economy, in which governments typically do little, but have the mandate to intervene where it is considered necessary, is the best system. Side: NO WAY
|
