http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...es_public_debt
If you scroll down the historical debt levels it gives you a good idea of the debt increases since just after the civil war. The debt to GDP ratio is pretty telling
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...es_public_debt
If you scroll down the historical debt levels it gives you a good idea of the debt increases since just after the civil war. The debt to GDP ratio is pretty telling
SUA SPONTE
You don't even know what libertarian philosphy is, but you are content to use it as an epithet. In a libertarian economic model, there is little danger of "buying" an elected official because the libertarians don't give the government the power to do anything.
Your opinions seem firmly grounded upon your ignorance.
Sayonara
Ah so in your model the gov has no ability to do anything. Like regulate those things I was talking about to keep them from bribing and buying our gov. Thanks for proving my point for me. You just invalidated your own argument even if you don't understand how.
Go on explain yourself rather than doing a kid dance based on your opinion. The only thing you said was "I know you are but what am I" hardly a winning argument.
Another comment where you show your ignorance.
First, I'm not a libertarian. Its not "my" model. My comments were illustrating how you are making comments about libertarian economic models that bear absolutely no relationship to actual libertarian philosophy. None. Your "refutations" of the libertarian model are to make up nonsense about what it states, and then triumphantly proclaim how wrong your fabrications are.
It would seem obvious that if government was not allowed to act outside of a small sphere, it would be meaningless to "bribe" its officials for results outside that sphere. (Meanwhile increased regulations in the real world are increasing the influence of big corporations and increasing the amount of crony capitalism).
So your belief that my comments - which you can't seem to understand at all - prove your point is just so absolutely ridiculous that I wonder how it is that you can be so confused about basics.
Sayonara
Even when gov was much smaller back in the 1800s corruption was a big problem. Its laughable to think that if you shrank gov small enough that corruption mean nothing. That is historically false.
Now if we had regulations that made it so that people could not buy or bribe our gov and punishments that put people in jail for a long time who did so, that might go a long way in fixing this mess. But as I said you and admitted, you do want regulations.
So about who is being ridiculous now?
No regulations + strong tort law solves most problems without the dead weight of giant regulatory agencies.
What? what do you think tort law is?