Message from @jimboevan
Discord ID: 606978942376869904
most of the time banning it causes a lot of problems
Not really
for example drugs giving money to cartels
You have to look at the empirical evidence
And in many of those cases that is failure on the part of the government
i agree
but thats how the goverment works
they are really bad at their job
No, in many other cases, govt. intervention is better than not banning or not regulating
some cases yes
a lot of cases no
As I said, it depends on how the govt. actions are undertaken
It doesn't mean you have to abandon the govt. altogether
i agree u do need government
but a limited government is much better
Difference is, you are taking it as an axiom
I'm depending on empirical evidence
Small government can be better in some instances, worse off in other
yes it does depend on factors
i honestly think certain aspects of the government should be expanded
Border wall is an example of a big government program that is necessary
And other forms of immigration restrictions
agreed
SAIKAT CHAMRABARTI IS GONE
though i do think the government should privatize the building of the wall and other border security elements
What do you think will happen when the owner of that part of the private wall decides to let Mexicans in on his whim
not a private wall land
With the govt. wall, the govt. is accountable to the people
Private corporations are not
i mean like the government contracts someone to build the wall for them
they own the land and what not
In that case, it can be feasible
i think a lot of thing can be done well with that approach
This is why State Capitalism > Minarchy
i'm not a fan of state owned business tho
ie state monopolies
though i can agree that there needs to be more than just the military, police and courts
how about
Megarchy