Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[scriver]

Nationalism was not as common or propagated as it is today, nor - in those cases it did exist - was it as strong. Well, if we go further back than your dates, at least.
In the case of 300 years ago, nationalism was just beginning to rise. Go back 100-200 years instead and you have a political map perfect for unification - a large number of small countries whose people identify with a larger national idea. After all, the sentiment back then was pretty much "let's our group of people band together to kick that other group's asses!" and then they did.

[subject name here]

obama creates world's first superdog

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(just like  the nazis)

.

first prototype video released

[Neonivek]

Well there is this new trend of arguements being made that people cannot complain about the Government because the government is a body of many people, agencies, and departments

Which makes little sense but it is along the same lines as "Support our troops" as an arguement against shutting down a war.

[doomchild]

Thinking that there's any magical government that can perfectly unite most countries, especially the way the world is today, is absurd

Yes but that would mean EVERY SINGLE war the USA has taken part in after WW2 has been a sham.

That's because they were.  Actually, I guess I should say are, since we're still fighting.

The current major western governments are all bureaucracies, and bureaucracy always gathers power to itself; it never voluntarily gives it up.  The growth of middle management in once-small companies is just one example.  The U.S. government is a prime example of the phenomenon.  The creeping nature of federal interventionism can be seen by looking at the increase in regulatory control over once wholly private endeavors.

I'm a libertarian, so I see that as a bad thing.  I don't think government healthcare is a good idea.  I think the existing corporate regulations were largely (if not solely) responsible for the major economic downturn.  I think every war since WWII has been wrong.  I think FDR was wrong, Mises was right, and Reagan was senile.

[Taricus]

Yeah, a bureaucracy is only going to be replaced by AIs, Nothing else will work on those kinds of scales.

[Leafsnail]

I think FDR was wrong, Mises was right, and Reagan was senile.

Yeah, Hoover's libertarian policies were helping America a lot.

[doomchild]

I think FDR was wrong, Mises was right, and Reagan was senile.

Yeah, Hoover's libertarian policies were helping America a lot.

Hoover was a libertarian in the same way that I'm a bathtub full of lemons that has been floating through outer space for the last ten million years.

[USEC_OFFICER]

I'm a libertarian, so I see that as a bad thing. I think the existing corporate regulations were largely (if not solely) responsible for the major economic downturn.

And then you look at the fact that Canada has more corporate and banking regulations, and has weathered the economic downturn better the the US. 

[Leafsnail]

So, uh, why was FDR wrong to oppose Hoover, then?

[mainiac]

Fun fact: federal government employees are less then half as large a fraction of the population as they were 50 years ago.

[doomchild]

I'm a libertarian, so I see that as a bad thing. I think the existing corporate regulations were largely (if not solely) responsible for the major economic downturn.

And then you look at the fact that Canada has more corporate and banking regulations, and has weathered the economic downturn better the the US. 

I know little to nothing about the Canadian government (or Canada in general, really), so I don't know what kind of regulation they have.  I just know ours didn't work, and that makes me think adding more of the same won't work either.

So, uh, why was FDR wrong to oppose Hoover, then?

Do what?  Hoover was in favor of increased regulation and certain types of welfare (things like farm subsidies, for example).  FDR did the same thing, just on a bigger scale.  Opposing Hoover was fine; the problem is that FDR did the same thing every presidential candidate of the last 150 years has done:  lie.  He lied his face off.

Fun fact: federal government employees are less then half as large a fraction of the population as they were 50 years ago.

I've never seen any data to support that.  I'm not saying it's not true, just that I've got no data.  But even if it is true, government expenditure has continued to rise, and I think that's a better metric for gauging growth.

[Leafsnail]

So... not being a libertarian automatically makes you a liar?

[Willfor]

American regulations were castrated over a period of years, whereas Canada's more-than-a-decade-of-straight-liberal-governance allowed regulations to be put into place that effectively tied the hands of banks so they couldn't do as many stupid things to make a buck. If we hadn't tied the hands of our banks they would have followed the US banks off a cliff.

[DJ]

Fun fact: federal government employees are less then half as large a fraction of the population as they were 50 years ago.

I've never seen any data to support that.  I'm not saying it's not true, just that I've got no data.  But even if it is true, government expenditure has continued to rise, and I think that's a better metric for gauging growth.

Has it? Now, I know nothing about the USA's government expenditure, but if the number of government employees has relatively decreased, it kinda makes sense that government expenditure has also relatively decreased (relative to USA's GDP, I mean). Of course, I could be completely wrong, not sure if they had War on Drugs 50 years ago.

[Soadreqm]

They had the war on Communism.