←back to thread

207 points gnabgib | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.642s | source
Show context
silexia ◴[] No.43748401[source]
The bigger government gets, the less freedoms the people have. It is critically important not to ask government to solve problems (government is bad at solving most problems), and to seek ways to shrink government.
replies(6): >>43748421 #>>43748433 #>>43748440 #>>43748459 #>>43748471 #>>43752284 #
MarcelOlsz[dead post] ◴[] No.43748433[source]
[flagged]
steve_adams_86 ◴[] No.43748469[source]
I agree and disagree. Some things make sense to centralize. Some things maybe less.

I’m glad Canada is talking about centralizing how trade is managed, for example. I think it’ll be good for us in the long run. Yet I don’t think food security is best accomplished through centralized farming practices. Distribution of these systems may be slightly less efficient, but I think that’s a price worth paying in the longer term. Especially as we need to worry more about climate change which can have localized impacts.

It’s a complex matter. We shouldn’t hesitate to centralize when it makes sense. But we should be careful, too. Centralization comes with drawbacks, no matter what. They won’t always be easy to anticipate.

replies(2): >>43748574 #>>43750234 #
1. lupusreal ◴[] No.43750234[source]
Maximally efficient food production and distribution is definitely not what anybody should want. Redundancy and stockpiles aren't efficient but are good for food security. Efficiency comes with fragility, which risks famine should anything ever go wrong.