Quote:
Originally Posted by ijusluvit
bk - It appears you are actually beginning to agree with me about the role of the federal government. The details you cited about the Embargo Act and the Louisiana Purchase actually illustrate how high a priority it was for Jefferson to attempt to strengthen the country as a whole. He may have thought long and hard about the implications of both actions on state and local governments, but he took the actions, for better (Louisiana), or worse (Embargo).
So, jumping to the present, I am still looking forward to hearing your opinion of the actions taken by the current Congress and administration, using the authority of the federal government to rather dramatically check the actions of banks, credit corporations, unions, investment houses and huge multinational corporations (BP). I'll agree that none of these steps are absolutely perfect. They are all strong assertions of federal authority and other than philosophical opposition, I'd like to know specifically what you think is negative about them.
|
Since you seem to be a fan of history, you'll agree that the prosperity and liberties achieved by capitalism and free markets overwhelmingly outways prosperity and liberty gained through fascism and government control. I don't agree with a ruling class of intellectuals, bereaucrats and social engineers deciding what society wants or needs. That is what we are protected from with the Constitution.
When our government spends our money to help us and protect us, bad things happen.
My question to you is, who are the winners and losers when the government attempts to control and regulate business production or trade?