aTmAg said:
It's clear in the first 10 minutes that he has read a CRAP-TON.
One thing he talks about is the ORDER in reducing government. I have been pondering this recently.
I used to think that every bit of incremental deregulation is good. That we should take what we can get whenever we can. But have realized that is wrong. For example, when we repealed the Glass-Steagall act, we only repealed PART of it. That made things worse and helped cause 2008. After all, Glass-Steagall created the FDIC AND added regulation to counteract the resulting moral hazard. There is a reason those two things were enacted together. To just get rid of the latter without getting rid of the FDIC also, is actually worse than if we kept the entire thing in place. So in that case, it would have been best to get rid of the WHOLE thing at once, not in parts.
This example is why I tend strongly towards the bold part. Just get rid of it all at once. I'm willing to listen to arguments about dismantling piecemeal, but the burden of proof is on whoever is making that argument. The main reason for this belief is the same that nobody can be trusted to manage an economy in the first place. If that is true, then how can someone be trusted to actually deliver? How can they be trusted to even know HOW to deliver?
The best example I have for all of this is a computer that's been used for years and never cleaned up. One where you've downloaded 1000 programs that are all running, clicked every sketchy link, watched tons of pron, 30 tabs open on your browser, etc. At this point, it's so bad that you're better off starting over by reformatting or just buying a new computer. That is where our government is.
