<<An hundred people acting together is better sometimes and sometimes not.>>
OK, but your opposition to government-orchestrated collective solutions is not sometimes on and sometimes off; seems to me you are always 100% "off," i.e. always non-receptive to any government-orchestrated collective solution, which indicates a rigid and inflexible belief that any government is incapable of orchestrating any acceptable form of collective solution.
<<For a Government bigger is always better and growth is irriversable.>>
NO reason at all to believe that - - here in Ontario we had eight years of "belt-tightening" under a Conservative government which resulted in cut-backs and lay-offs in the public sector and a distinctly smaller Provincial government. (With results that were ultimately disastrous, but that's another story.) The previous "growth" of the Ontario government was far from "irreversible." The government is basically whatever size the democratically elected representatives of the people decide it should be.
<<Government is always more or less coercive , when it comes to coercion ,less is better.>>
Says the man who stops at every red light. Which came first, BTW, the automobile or the traffic signal? Every form of "coercion" that the government imposes comes in the wake of a need created by a lack of coercion. First the automobile without the regulation of the traffic signal, then the traffic signal because of the problems of the unregulated traffic. First the stock market fraud, then the "blue sky" legislation. First the tax evader, then the need for increased IRS enforcement.
What is this fear of "coercive" government but a flight from modernity and its complexities? REAL coercion, as in the "need" to keep "suspects" in infinite detention without trial, waterboarding of prisoners and the trials of people who advocate without acting, is NEVER the object of conservative objection. The growth of a police state, the assassination without trial of American citizens abroad and the spying of government agents upon them at home, THAT kind of coercion is always accepted. It seems that the only "coercion" that a conservative will oppose is anything which relates to the amelioration of the lives of the poorest and most vulnerable Americans. Compulsory universal single-payer insurance, for example, or payment of taxes to finance social welfare projects.
