I disagree. The Constitution is more than enough. If the people think it is not, it should vote to amend it. If they don't, the federal government should stick solely to what is written in it. And if people want to try something, it should happen at the state level, so that alternatives exist. The purpose of the Constitution is to limit the Federal government's power. What your suggesting is ridiculously dangerous and the reason for many of the problems today: the massive increase in federal government power a.k.a. socialism. And regarding the "making sure nobody is left behind" part:
This is simply not true... It is a government "Of the People, by the Bureaucrats, for the Bureaucrats".
He's a smart kid, I was like him at his age. Hopefully at some point he'll read a guy named Keynes, realize that smart, well meaning people can have divergent views, and back into his own philosophies rather than running around quoting Friedman and stereotyping. And hopefully he doesn't get his ass kicked to badly during the journey. And maybe he'll actually learn what it smells like in the Sistine Chapel. Sadly for him there's an eternal track record on the internet of his youthful ignorance, thankfully that wasn't around for me so I get to modify my memory of that phase of my life to be a bit less embarrassing!
Your idiotic reaction confirms you have no clue what you are talking about.This is how you sound:
It's really pathetic and embarassing you keep just saying the same age shit over and over...
)I disagree. The Constitution is more than enough. If the people think it is not, it should vote to amend it. If they don't, the federal government should stick solely to what is written in it. And if people want to try something, it should happen at the state level, so that alternatives exist. The purpose of the Constitution is to limit the Federal government's power. What your suggesting is ridiculously dangerous and the reason for many of the problems today: the massive increase in federal government power a.k.a. socialism. And regarding the "making sure nobody is left behind" part:
This is simply not true... It is a government "Of the People, by the Bureaucrats, for the Bureaucrats".
And it is very easy to prove this: What matters is not what the people want, no matter which party is in power. What matters is what the groups of vested interests that have enough power to lobby want. Among the COUNTLESS examples that shows this, one of each of the last two presents(I can quote MANY MORE, if you want, or you can read some of the books I mentioned and there are a lot more):
Obamacare: if a poll was made in which each and every american would vote if they wanted a policy that would make insurance prices soar, do you think you would get an overwhelming majority, even from the ones that voted for Obama to pass it? Of course not. If it was up to this, it would never have been passed. But it was. And to "alledgedly" repeal it, they had to elect another president(which is an extremely slow and ineffective way to do this) and, as I said, if it was indeed the will of the people, it would never have been passed in the first place.
Trump: steel tariffs will make everything made out of steel in the U.S. much more expensive. Do you think you could get the People to vote to spend more of their own money on things they usually consume and are made out of steel? Of course not. (Not to mention the jobs that will be lost by people that work in companies in the U.S. that use steel to make their products, since their costs will shoot up and they will lose competitiveness and eventually break.) Why does something like this ever gets passed? Lobby from the U.S. steel industry, which are the sole benefiters of this, at the expense of the american people.
This is what always happens when government intervenes in the free market "so that the nobody gets left behind". This is the principle of the policies above, but the result is a great number of people that have low lobbying power, that gets explored by the ones who great lobbying power... But the list is endless, as I said, there are COUNTLESS examples of this... All based on this principle you mentioned and all having the same end result.
It's really pathetic and embarassing you keep just saying the same age shit over and over...
Ludwig von Mises died at 92.
Milton Friedman at 94.
Thomas Sowell is 88.
Friedrich Hayek died at 93.
Below are some quotes of these people and a special one in answer to your post at the end.
Now, tell me, if what I say and think has to do with age(and you have no idea how old I am) and only young people think the way I do.
How do you explain the men above who died defending these ideas or still defend them to this day, the very ideas I've been defending throughout this thread?
(While waiting for another evasion from your part on the above question(since it appears it's all you're capable of), if you're ever up to the challenge of discussing ideas and addressing the points I make, instead of making baseless coments about personal things of people you know nothing about, I'll be here.
"People who enjoy meetings should not be in charge of anything."
Thomas Sowell
It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.
Thomas Sowell
"The least productive people are usually the ones who are most in favor of holding meetings."
Thomas Sowell
The most fundamental fact about the ideas of the political left is that they do not work. Therefore we should not be surprised to find the left concentrated in institutions where ideas do not have to work in order to survive.
Thomas Sowell
"It is amazing that people who think we cannot afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, and medication somehow think that we can afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, medication and a government bureaucracy to administer it."
Thomas Sowell
To act on the belief that we possess the knowledge and the power which enable us to shape the processes of society entirely to our liking, knowledge which in fact we do not possess, is likely to make us do much harm.
Friedrich Hayek
If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action.
Ludwig von Mises
The interventionists do not approach the study of economic matters with scientific disinterestedness. Most of them are driven by an envious resentment against those whose incomes are larger than their own. This bias makes it impossible for them to see things as they really are. For them the main thing is not to improve the conditions of the masses, but to harm the entrepreneurs and capitalists even if this policy victimizes the immense majority of the people.
Ludwig von Mises
The unhampered market economy is not a system which would seem commendable from the standpoint of the selfish group interests of the entrepreneurs and capitalists. It is not the particular interests of a group or of individual persons that require the market economy, but regard for the common welfare. It is not true that the advocates of the free-market economy are defenders of the selfish interests of the rich. The particular interests of the entrepreneurs and capitalists also demand interventionism to protect them against the competition of more efficient and active men. The free development of the market economy is to be recommended, not in the interest of the rich, but in the interest of the masses of the people.
Ludwig von Mises
Even if the government spends itself into bankruptcy and the economy still does not recover, Keynesians can always say that it would have worked if only the government had spent more.
Thomas Sowell
