BL> Governents should *not* try to run the economy...

BK> In every case where the govt stays out of the economy the
BK> people, as a mass, tend to be very poor, with a few very rich.

 I didn't say they should stay out of it, just that they shouldn't
try to run it.

 You can never find a Robin Hood when you need one - tax is the
correct tool to move wealth from rich and poor... steal from the rich
and give to the poor.

 The only thing you can trust the rich to do is get rich. *They* are
the ones who should be running the economy, not pack of creepy liars
(otherwise known as politicians) and time-serving bureaucrats whose
one goal is to retire on a nice superannuation. The rich want it all,
and that is the correct attitude for creating wealth which once
created, the government should then spread around using tax as the
rake. Rake the filthy lucre off the rich and spread it on the
dickheads to keep them blooming, like horse manure on roses (it's
nearly spring, here in Oz).

BL> What they should do is constantly revise Law to see what they
BL> can *remove* to increase individual freedom of choice... and
BL> that would probably mean the State and big business should get
BL> the hell out of it.

BK> Which requires more govt intervention to get big business out.

 How does a law restricting the power of big business restrict the
freedom of the individual? If we pass a law preventing a nuclear power
station dumping toxic waste in your backyard, it may hurt the
profitability of that company but it does not interfere with the
economy overall. I am all in favour of strict regulation of *big*
business so long as it does not inhibit small business.

BL> The weird part is that there is not one government on Earth
BL> doing that. They all go the other way... constantly increasing
BL> restrictions.

BK> And those that don't wind up with business ruining the country.

 A am talking about personal restrictions... like banning smoking, or
tax law that is so complex no one can work the system but big
companies and lawyers. Government's job is not to run the economy, it
is to protect and enhance personal freedom... and that includes a
prosperous economy best left to big business and those driven to be
rich. What usually happens, is that the small minority of rich takes
control of governenment and runs it to suit themselves. They do not
give a damn about personal freedom because they can always buy it.

 A democracy leaves itself open to minority control, as soon as we
allow political parties to form. In the same way that politicians
*love* pressure groups (which can guarantee a block of votes), then
the rich love poltical parties they can dominate with money.

BL> A classic example of the Nanny State is here in New South Wales
BL> where they are talking about imposing a curfew on young drivers
BL> becasue they keep killing themselves at night. The kids
BL> themselves desire nothing more than a driving licence, they are
BL> obviously happy to take the tiny risk of being killed by their
BL> inexperience on the road at night... but the Nanny State knows
BL> best. Like hell they do.

BK> So, now you are saying the *CHILDREN* know best?

 At eighteen they  vote, get married, buy a house, go to gaol... who
said anything about children? Persoanlly, I can't see this insanity
having any legs, for the exact fucntion I quoted first... they vote.
Politicians are quite happy to see the dead bodies pile up, but a vote
is sacred.

 I'm shocked that you can't see this as a restriction of personal
freedom, Bob. Life is risky. The only safe part of life is the dead
part at the end. If I am willing to accept the small risk of being
killed driving a car (so long as I do not increase the risk to others
*unreasonably*) then what business is it of a government? It's the
same with smoking.

 The problem we have is the idea of "reasonable* risk. The risk of
giving someone else cancer if I smoke in a public park is as close
to zero as risks come, yet our local council has just banned smoking
in all public parks! They also insist they all dogs have to be on a
leash on penalty of $200... even a toy poodle! Government keeps
advertising that *all* dogs can turn vicious, which is silly. You
might as well say that all children can bite, or all mice. They define
risks as *less* than zero. Here in Oz, once a driver gets a licence
there is a provisonal period on "P" plates. The blood-alcohol allowed
in ZERO! and that's insane. You can have 0.01% alcohol after eating a
ripe mango! For everyone else, the limit is 0.05%.. and that's
reasonable. Zero is silly.

 We're being turned into the nanny state where no risk is considered
too small.. and none are allowed.

Regards,
Bob



--- BQWK Alpha 0.5