History says you're wrong. Every country on earth says you're wrong. Why do you think you're right? You haven't explained it.
What do you want to know more about? I haven't said much on what my platform is and yet you have placed on a map and are sure of its placement.
These questions about water are raised, but no study with decent methodology proves true harm. Most of the places these questions are coming from are tinfoil hat-wearers who believe it's a government mind control plot.
That is because no studies have really been done all that well on it. I however have no reason to believe that poisons are ok in low doses over a long period of time. It sounds illogical to me.
Private industry existing atop goverment infrastructure is the universal rule. It's not badly planned - it's necessary in a fast-paced, highly competitive, highly communicative society. Every company's land, plumbing, communication infrustrcture, roads they use for transport, etc, is all built on a government platform. They can't exist in a meaningful capacity without it because fractured industry and landscape does not work in a developed country. It's not competitive.
That is more a instrument of how it is now though. There is no reason to believe that I can see that the infrastructure you speak of is a essential part of society in order to make society work. Saying it as so with no supporting evidence like you did is not very convincing.
There is no country that I am aware of that is largely de-regulated where poverty levels are low. Please find one and correct me if I am wrong. Qualifications for this include private infrastructure and governance. You can claim it all you want, but history books and the world economy disagree. All evidence says that what happens is that a tiny percentage get rich, and the vast majority become destitutely poor.
Lets ignore that you are obviously changed the topic and you clearly do not know my stance but you decree that you in fact do, which is clearly and loudly blatantly false and focus only on your lack of understanding of the world in which we live. You think that deregulation in which I call for has actually happened, and that my friend is false so comparing it to history is a falsity. Second, in all countries that have huge populations of poor they do not have the conditions in which I call for, in the system that I wish to be in place. Their cultures are weak, their understanding of freedom is limited, and their will is limited but all of this can be fixed, but in order to really get there they have to move more to a free market system with economic freedom in place. All of them are not good comparisons to what I decree.
There is balance in all things. Communications companies actually have tons of freedom to innovate and add features and control pricing since they don't have the worry about the ground work. There is nothing wrong with the groundwork. It goes everywhere. So they get to cover as much as of that as they desire to aim for, in whatever way they aim to. The free market decides who is best.
Control pricing they do not have. If they price too high the government will cry, that is not freedom as it should be. Its control, pure and simple. As for the free market, a market in which the government is involved is not free, but it might still be a market. A free market driven solution wouldn't include the government in the solution, it wouldn't allow a failed model to be exist in the name of some sort of game it offers. The model in which you seek is a net lose, not only in price, but in freedom and in fair competitive forces. The gains it gives should be offered in a reasonable, real world solution that market can manage, not a solution in which needs help to exist and makes a special exception to a field because of gains. This just holds up what you wish and holds down everyone else. Not freedom at all, not fair at all, and I dare say not good for the country.
And here's where we get to the overarching point. When the basics, the questions of survival, are taken care of, the freedom for human innovation is limitless. People don't have to spend all day worrying about how they're going to eat, or if they'll freeze to death at night (though unfortunately some still do in America - funnily enough, the rate of this depth of poverty is lower in more regulated countries).
The rate of poverty has nothing to do with regulations and everything like I said to do with wealth. That comes from the market. When the wealth is high and the market is healthy poverty is lower.
My goal post has not move. I have been consistently rebutting your basless and fanciful claims. You say you think it will just be utopia (without giving me any reason other than that you think it), yet I can't think of a single example in history of your kind of government leading to that. And certainly not in modern history where competitiveness depends on connectivity and assured thresholds of education.
You went from talking of a view issues to talking of my entire platform. That is a goal shift. Second, my type of government has actually been(pretty much) tried once, but it failed due to demands of the people and modern liberalism spreading the globe. It however was doing well before that came to be.
The reality is that individuals who satisfy their lower order needs e.g., survival, aspire toward progressively higher order ones. That is human nature. It is no accident that societies that migrate from little more than an existential struggle also evolve toward policies whose goals extend beyond mere survival. It is no accident that the arrangement you suggest has never been implemented.
They ask for help, which is human nature instead of looking into themselves. Yes, I understand this well. I have formed my policies in fixing this problem. You can call them imperfect if you wish, you can them mean, you can them cruel, but you can't say your ideas have handing them survival is better. I had them the tools, I had them the path, I do not hand them the results in which they plead for. I do this through the private means of production, through protection of rights, and freedom. The three and only three tools people need and throughout history have not had. I admit that paths are hard, I admit that the government needs to make sure they stay open, but I will do nothing greater. I believe in the basic footprint that founders wanted to leave to the world, but never could manage to make people understand. If you wish to call me a dreamer, or naive, go right ahead, but I assure of one thing, what we are doing is not working.
Societies have concluded that government should provide certain social welfare functions, the major differences being how extensive (can be a problem if they grow to unsustainable levels financially and in terms of administration) and in what fashion (can also be a problem e.g., the pay-as-you go design is inherently flawed in the face of demographic shift toward a relatively older population). Fiscal consolidation will need to address both aspects of the nation's social welfare system. It almost certainly will not eliminate it.
This is the fundamental problem in social order. When the country was founded a big step was taken and a responsibility was given to the people. This gave way to the possibility that the people would solve social issues and with empowerment of the private means of production there was real hope that (classic)liberalism and the power of the idea it gave birth too was going to take hold. Predictably people like Marx where born and the idea liberalism and the power of social justice took hold again and all the progress that could of been was never to be. Instead we regressed back to what we were doing for 2000 years, not solving our social problems, not allowing freedom, and using government for fix the world. I don't believe in regression and believing in government as you guys do is regressive in nature and doesn't allow the possibility of real meaningful growth as individual people.
A similar situation exists with rspect to foreign policy. As a nation's power grows (political, economic, and military), especially in a world that is becoming ever more interconnected (trade, capital, information flows), it has a growing number of overseas interests and also has international allies. While it must be careful to avoid overreach, abdication (even non-interventionism aka "soft isolationism" that embraces trade, but nothing else in foreign policy) also undermines its interests and security. It must find a careful balance based on a combination of its ideals, critical interests, and allies.
I have been trying to figure out what you want but I just don't appear to have the ability to do it, sorry. Can you talk in more direct means for me?
A bit late bit here I am.
