'You can have an immoral people, or you can have a small state, but you can't have both.'
The article was not advocating a big state and bad people: it wanted a small state and good people. Can't you see that?
'You can have an immoral people, or you can have a small state, but you can't have both.'
The article was not advocating a big state and bad people: it wanted a small state and good people. Can't you see that?
Yes, I actually understood the article. As I pointed out the author was engaging in calculated deception.
'You can have an immoral people, or you can have a small state, but you can't have both.'
This statement is utterly false:
The possible combinations are:
Small state, bad people --Modern Russia, Somalia
Small state, good people -- United States 1800's
Big State, bad people -- USSR
Big State, good people -- Modern China
Its a false dillema, people are good and bad as individuals not as groups. There are cultural environments that healthier than others but ultimately they reflect the values of the individuals who comprise the society.
How exactly do you judge if a State is good or bad. Saddam Hussain's speechs read like a Baptist sermon.
America one the "nicer" countries on Earth has killed millions of innocent people. Usually we've had good intentions. But when you're 5 years old and covered in burning Napalm, the fact that the pilot attends Bible study every Wed. doesn't help.