>As I mentioned at the start of the discussion, it is a matter of definitions: bigger government with more control means more of socialism. It does not matter if you or anyone else likes the label or not. If government (any government) gets more power to set gasoline price (for example) then it means bigger government, not 'honest government'; again it does not matter if 'honest' sounds better than 'bigger'.

You said that socialism leads to communism (which leaves me stumped). Can you provide me with numbers about the size of communistic governments?

>I don't see how this reasoning could escalate the tone of the discussion. It is a simple, and in some way, scientific categorization.
>In regard to particular corruption issue, I may just repeat that, in my opinion, every government has inherent tendency to get corrupted and the size of the corruption is proportional to the size of the government.

Can you back that one up? It is my opinion that the smaller the government, the more they can get away with bigger corruption?

>Continuing this line logically, I see that the only way to ensure less corruption means making government smaller, and 'smaller' means actual constraints to government power. Speicifically, to the initial issue, it means that smaller government should have less power to set prices.

I cannot follow this. Please explain why a smaller government means less corruption? Or do you mean the government cannot corrupt things they don't control and leaving the corruptions to the corporate world. If so, I wonder why this would be an advantage. The corporate world is much harder to control and watch than the goverment. Isn't this exactly the problem that caused this mess?



>>I am also for the smallest possible gov't, just one that is honest and efficient. I believe the govt screws up just about everything it touches.
>>
>>>First of all, there is no reason for caps, it is considered shouting, i.e. impolite.
>>
>>Just highlighting your own statement, capitalizing a single word is not shouting.
>>
>>
>>>Also, I do not appreciate your distortion of my words. It is very easy to check my messages to find out that I did not say that I want this kind of government, i.e. corrupt.
>>
>>>>>I would not prefer it (Honest,Efficient government), because I am aware of historical precedents of searching for this kind of "efficient government". As it was mentioned many times, i.e. not by me only, the road to the hell is paved with the best intentions. In political sense, it means exactly "efficient government" that will cure all ills.
>>
>>I just assumed when I said I wanted an Honest, Efficient govt, and you said that you would not prefer it that you meant it? How did you want that statement interpreted?
>>
>>Also my statement was not for just an efficient, but also an Honest gov't, to which you counter that it would become more corrupt?
>>Now I realize we will never get an Honest/Efficient govt nor will we ever get small govt but we should at least strive for it.
>>
>>BTW, you are the one that escalated the tone of this exchange by labeling my ideas socialist/communist, which they are clearly not.
>>
>>
>>
>>Sorry, for somewhat meticulous statement of the obvious, but it is required, unfortunately.
>>>If you are really interested in knowing my preferences on this issue (frankly, I have doubts about it) then you should know that my preferences are for small government. It is based on historical precedents, firstly, showing that every government is somewhat corrupt, and, the most unfortunate, it tends, if not changed in time, becoming more corrupt as time goes on. Small government here means smaller corruption. Secondly, I am aware, by the same historical precedents, that quest for efficient government results in bigger government, i.e. with more corruption and, the most dangerous part, with so much power that changing it in time could pose serious difficulties.
>>>
>>>>So your PREFERENCE is a corrupt, inefficient government?
>>>>Well, I just don't know what to say to that except
>>>>
>>>>You are one lucky guy, because that is exactly what we have, you should be beaming with pride!
>>>>
>>>>>I would not prefer it, because I am aware of historical precedents of searching for this kind of "efficient government". As it was mentioned many times, i.e. not by me only, the road to the hell is paved with the best intentions. In political sense, it means exactly "efficient government" that will cure all ills.
>>>>>
>>>>>>Wanting a Honest, Efficient government is communism?
>>>>>>Wouldn't you prefer to have one?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The connection is that with Oil (and other products) taxpayers are picking up the costs, thus the costs taken from people without consent even if they don't use the product, by way of the Govt deciding whats best for us,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Price includes market cost, and I feel that your 'real or true cost' is something quite different. I see no connection between market cost and socialism, and no LOL may change it.
>>>>>>>In regard to your comment about 'ideal world government', I can only mention well-documented notion that every honest socialist believes in the ideal world as the next, post-socialism stage. It is called communism in most theoretical publications.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>In an ideal world, government would have the best interest of the population and long term sustainability as its core value, but obviously that is not what we are stuck with. Are you saying that the price of an item should not include it's real cost? That it should be subsidized by others? And you think my ideas are socialist LOL.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>As soon as you use the word "should", i.e. price should include this, should include that and so on, then the next issue is to have someone or something deciding how much it should be, and the next step is to use government for this purpose, and it is called socialism. It is the matter of definition, after all. By the way, your claim that by increasing government control you avoid system 'corrupted by politics' is just illogical.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I think supply and demand is a good system when all the variables are considered and the system is not corrupted by politics and other corruption. I believe ALL products should include all costs,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Cigarettes should include health cost, pollution costs, fire hazard costs
>>>>>>>>>>Cars should include cost for recycling, cleaning up the brownfields left behind
>>>>>>>>>>Firecrackers should include the cost of fires, lost limbs
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>If our system included these costs then we would not have to subsidize them with tax dollars, and our health
>>>>>>>>>>If we included these costs Alternatives would be more competitive, people would be wiser in the use of energy, we would have less pollution, less dependance on our enemy for our security,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I don't see how you think thats socialism
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>So you support gasoline taxes even higher than in Europe with government deciding 'true cost' of pollution, military intervention, etc? It seems that you consider free-market mechanisms skewed and unfair. Would you like to abolish them and institute benevolent (i.e. more benevolent than in Europe) government control (aka socialism)? Please, don't refer to Sweden and France now. As I see from your message they are not proactive enough. There are other entities in the world, definitely more proactive in terms of price controls.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>The mechanism we have currently sets the price without consideration to the cost of pollution, military intervention being considered and even then it is skewed by tax breaks and government backing (not just in the US). So supply/demand should define the floor with additional taxes to cover the other items as determined by statisics/auditing. My guess is Europe is much closer to this number but still too low.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>What kind of mechanism should decide this 'true cost'?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I think energy prices should reflect the true cost of development, pollution, war to protect it, etc. Hopefully enough people have been woken up by recent events not to go blindly back to their selfish, gluttonous ways; but the jury is still out on that. For me, the global warming argument is not the driver, even though I applaud efforts to clean up our enviroment and reduce consumption. Solar and wind alternatives will suffer in the short term with lower fuel costs, but will cost us much more in the long term as reality of situation becomes more obvious.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Bob
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Do you consider low energy price unfortunate? Please, note that there are different kinds of retooling, i.e. forcible and natural. If your concerns are about energy infrastructure itself (i.e. no global warming-like arguments) then natural retooling could be considered as preferential, imo; and low energy prices will not harm then.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Unfortunately the drop in Oil prices and the general downturn is working against retooling our energy infastructure, two examples I have seen recently (sorry no links)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>1) Toyota is postponing the Mississippi plant that was to make the next generation plugin Prius
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>2) In Pennsylvania thay announced Solar and Alternative energy rebates a few months ago, looks like thay might not happen because of trouble peddling the bonds that back them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>But on the plus side, Its crushing the economy of places like Veneseula, Iran, Russia
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The Saudis et al have just ordered the biggest cutback in oil production history. I think the poor oil producing folks are addicted to money. Enough is enough! It's time to use the money for Detroit to re-tool the plants for electric cars. Let's turn off the money tap that leads to Arabia.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28274997/