[mint5]

Yes my comment was a bit of a knee jerk reaction to seeing a statement, but take a pause and consider what caused it.

It shouldn’t be surprising that a call for shrinking government after the doge fiasco raises counter examples, especially in response to an article on doge.

And since your statement was so broad and generalized, it doesn’t really lend itself to constructive debate.

But yes this site strives for more quality discussion.

It seems we both agree though, but have different views on where to set the scale.

We agree on the fundamental yeah? Can we agree that while regulation and enforcement, aka big government, is annoying and costly, yet at the same time a good number of regulations are or were necessary due to being written in literal blood.

We agree on that right? That neither of us want melamine poisoning the milk small kids drink nor do we want our kitchen counter tops to be priced in terms of lung chunks of workers. But also acknowledge that regulations hurt small businesses and need balance.

[tracker1]

Personally, I don't think corporate liabilities should be nearly as limited as they are and that something like negligent homicide from a company could/should potentially include the death penalty for corporate officers. In the case of very large spread issues, corporate officers and board members should be at risk of losing personal wealth as well.

That said, I'd rather not be using taxpayer funds for NGOs that mostly funnel money into political propaganda or circumcisions in another country.

Just because I don't think the federal govt should be nearly as big as it is, doesn't mean I embrace or encourage outright evil. I was only making a statement in that I largely supported the idea of dramatically cutting back on a lot of federal speding, and in particular foreign spend on dubious causes.