That sounds sensible.
The discussion is about the state vs the individual. The state is ok if it puts the needs of inviduals first. It is not ok if it puts itself above all else. Increasing its size or income does not automatically mean the end result is only to the benifit of the state.
That sounds sensible.
"Question the world man... I know the meaning of everything right now... it's like I can touch god." - bbobb the ggreatt
Bannon is gone now
Na na na na na
Na na na na na...
lol. When we're lucky regulations protect the individual. More often than not they are to protect entrenched business operations or make busywork for government employees.
There was a period between, say, 1880 and 1935 where we probably did get a higher percentage of good regulation, because we were starting from a low point. But 1935 was a long time ago. Then there was a brief period in the early 1970s of solid environmental laws.
Hilariously it's usually corporate employees that complain the most about them, not realizing that a complete deregulation would unleash a flood gate of competition that was only held back by the high start up cost to meet the demands of state and fed regs.
Do you know why we don't have any new car brands? No one else can afford to meet the regs to get those first cars out.
If he doesn't get the results he wants, it's obviously the people under him and they can be replaced. The mind of an American CEO!
Bookmarks