Those of us on the quest for freedom know that the end goal
necessitates less government intervention, not more, especially since more government has not improved our economic or financial condition but only made things worse.
Unfortunately my own feeling is that much that is presently proposed and even implemented is on the wrong side of the borderline, i.e. the expected outcome is negative in comparison with realistic alternative policies
of less government intervention.
America's Roman Catholic bishops write that the «challenge of today is to move beyond abstract disputes about whether more or
less government intervention is needed, to consideration of creative ways of enabling government and private groups to work together effectively» (Economic Justice for All) The truth of this declaration is evident in the U.S. housing...
America's Roman Catholic bishops write that the «challenge of today is to move beyond abstract disputes about whether more or
less government intervention is needed, to consideration of creative ways of enabling government and private groups to work together effectively» (Economic Justice for All) The truth of this declaration is evident in the U.S. housing crisis.
Whether you believe energy supply and R&D needs more or
less government intervention, a different, more positive discussion could have been dominated by questions about how to get more energy to more people for less cost.
The general premise of the article was summed up by the title, with a strong implication that regulations are bad, lower costs and
less government intervention is good.