I've listened to progressives and libertarians argue it out for years and I want this groups opinions: would America have been better off if companies like Microsoft had never received all the no-bid government(s) contracts it's gotten over the years? Would we be better off if it stopped getting them now? Should it receive most of these contracts at all and should our government(s) be involved in such things? Seriously, can't Pelosi afford to buy her own version of Windows 7 and pay for her own email account. Should our governemnt be paying private companies like Google, Microsoft(in partnership with the NSA) to develop software to spy on us? What about government regulations that tell people what to buy(light bulbs, cars, etc)? Where does this government "investing in our economy" strategy start and end?

In short, is statism, if that's what you would call these kind of government public/private planned economy partnerships, good for our economy, country, etc?

What about government regulations that tell people what to buy(light bulbs, cars, etc)?

I fully agree. Where the hell does government get the right to tell me I'm no longer allowed to use DDT to kill the insects in my garden. And what about dynamite ban for use in fishing. Instead of one stick per 55 kilos of fish they expect me to use fishing pole? And what's with lead - the bottled water I sell and the ice cream for kids is just as good from my lead plumbing.

Well vote for Ron Paul then if you hate the government regulation
Jail time for planting a garden
Jailed for selling milk
Kids fined for selling lemonade (happens all the time)
Government takes your kids if they are fat

This is the most interesting one. Obama just signed an executive order (god damn he loves his power). So homeland security is watching farms? You plant a seed made by nature, it grows in nature. For some reason we need homeland security for this. Meanwhile the gov't is pushing all this GMO food.
Obama to takeover farms

OP's post is kind of all over the place, first talking about no-bid contracts (which in generally I typically think are bad) then delving into fictional "government-mandated purchasing". I'm going to address the latter.


The government is not "telling people what to buy". They are encouraging consumers to choose products that are good for themselves and good for the environment. The people who refuse to acknowledge this are the right-wing folks who go crazy about every thing that "the left" does. You can still buy incandescent bulbs. We're just requiring that they be manufactured more efficient than they have been for the last several decades. By consuming less energy, your power bill will be less expensive, the nation's energy needs decrease, there is less pollution being released into the environment, and thus better air quality and fewer health complications from pollution. How could you argue that this is a bad idea? Because power companies will have less of a profit? Because there won't be as many sick people paying for health care?


The same can be said for the government encouraging healthy food choices. If you've been reading the news, you'll know that our obesity crisis is getting even worse than it already was. People are buying food that is really really bad for them for various reasons (lack of education, food costs, etc). Obese people have more health complications, which taxes our healthcare system and increases the cost for everyone to have health insurance. By encouraging people to eat healthier foods through education or tax incentives, everyone benefits. I'm actually in favor of having a tax on food and beverages that are unhealthy because it will both encourage people to consider healthy alternatives as well as help offset the costs of caring for all these fat lazy Americans. I know that position is debatable, but you can't argue that a healthier populace will be good for everyone. Except maybe pharmaceutical companies and health providers who get wealthier when more people are sick.

In short, is statism, if that's what you would call these kind of government public/private planned economy partnerships, good for our economy, country, etc?

Not really. More like outsourcing.

If Obama needs to write a letter, he doesn't go down to a local government owned forest, chop down a tree, pulp it and make his own paper. It's supplied to him like it would to any employee who writes letters. And the paper supplied to him is not proof of a planned economical partnership for the good of our economy, any more than my contract with staple's.

No bid contracts are mixed. They are good in theory, since it saves tax payer money on the whole process of reviewing and making quotes as well as testing samples, which all cost taxpayer money and time. Plus, there's a lot of things only a big company can do anyways. It's not like a mom and pop shop is going to be producing nuclear detonators or voting machines.

"Where the hell does government get the right to tell me I'm no longer allowed to use DDT to kill the insects in my garden."

DDT's an interesting one. There's a body of opinion that banning it has killed more people (from malaria) than using it would have done. That is; although it's dangerous, it's better than the mosquitos having a good time.

DDT's an interesting one. There's a body of opinion that banning it has killed more people (from malaria) than using it would have done. That is; although it's dangerous, it's better than the mosquitos having a good time.

Except that's a lie, DDT was only banned for agricultural use in developed nations. DDT was only stopped for anti malaria use in undeveloped countries because of DDT resistant mosquitoes.

...
Government takes your kids if they are fat
...

Because those were pretty absurd, I went ahead and read them. Ultimately, I agree with some of them. Specifically the one I isolated above. Here's a quote from it:

[color="#0000ff"]Ludwig said he starting thinking about the issue after a 90-pound 3-year-old girl came to his obesity clinic several years ago. Her parents had physical disabilities, little money and difficulty controlling her weight. Last year, at age 12, she weighed 400 pounds and had developed diabetes, cholesterol problems, high blood pressure and sleep apnea. [color="#0000ff"]“Out of medical concern, the state placed this girl in foster care, where she simply received three balanced meals a day and a snack or two and moderate physical activity,” he said. After a year, she lost 130 pounds. Though she is still obese, her diabetes and apnea disappeared; she remains in foster care, he said.

Perhaps you've not met someone who's been overweight from childhood, but this girls life is completely different now.

I fully agree. Where the hell does government get the right to tell me I'm no longer allowed to use DDT to kill the insects in my garden.

DDT is safe: just ask the professor who ate it for 40 years

And what about dynamite ban for use in fishing. Instead of one stick per 55 kilos of fish they expect me to use fishing pole?

If it's your land and you're not hurting anyone else, why not?

And what's with lead - the bottled water I sell and the ice cream for kids is just as good from my lead plumbing.

Respectfully, I don't know of any true blue libertarian who believes that a person should be able to poison people, much less kids. Do you know anything about the libertarian movement?

BTW, what about the mercury that's in those new bulbs. How many kids are going to end up being poisoned by them?

BTW, what about the mercury that's in those new bulbs. How many kids are going to end up being poisoned by them?

I see, so in your world kids go around eatting light bulbs?

In that case what about all the house hold chemicals which they could also get a hold of? I'd be a little more worried about THAT then the tiny amount of mercury in a light bulb which, ya know, isn't something a kid is going to eat..