> In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it. [0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Chesterton's_fence

"Do not carelessly denigrate social institutions or creative achievement."

Strike a "we", replace by "rich elites". "Small government" means in practice that most of what governments are doing now with taxpayer money at no-profit will be done by private for-profit companies, at a worse service level, or that regulations/regulatory agencies will be torn down.

For the first, just look at private prisons - make a lot of profit for their owners, while the level of care for the prisoners (access to healthcare, drug withdrawal treatment or education is often spotty, human rights abuse claims the norm).

For the second, look at how e.g. environment regulations were "relaxed" during the 45th.

It's all about the grifting opportunities.

I don't agree. My 'poor' leftie friends are all about tearing shit down, while most 'rich' people I know are pretty happy with the way things are, wanting only to make small tweaks here and there.

Maybe you didn't mean for your position to lead to private prisons. But it does, anyway, and that is all that matters.

The US is also not the only place where prisons are private[2], there's the southern hemisphere's Sweden a.k.a. big government paradise, and it has a private prison.

To say either "public" or "private" and ascribe some sort of good or bad to them without providing any reasoning is presumptuous in the least, but to then tell someone what their actual position is - in your view - after making such a presumption would only be to compound an error.

I know what I meant, try to focus on what you mean and fixing that before mischaracterising my views again, thank you.

[1] https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/06/history-of-amer...

[2] https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/crit...

We do have private prisons. As you note, they started under Reagan, in response to Reagan's "anti-crime" policies. Reagan is notorious for claiming to support small government and balanced budgets while actually spending us deep into deficit in order to purchase boondoggles. How are your preferences different than Reagan's?

What’s the average length of a post on HN and where does that post stand?

> How are your preferences different than Reagan's?

You just stated that he acted contrary to his claims, if your position is that I say I’m for small government but wish to spend, spend, spend, then I can see why you’re confused. Try dropping the assumption I’m lying, the principle of charity is a wonderful thing.

More to the point, as you are confused by sarcasm in the service of proof by contradiction, I’ll rephrase:

Would you claim that the government was historically small in 1983?

Is today’s government smaller or bigger?

How do both of your answers correlate with the increasing number of private prisons?

Finally, since your answers should be no, bigger, and bigger government correlates with more private prisons, what on Earth are you on about?

And yet you're going to avoid defending it, or even looking at, nor answering any of my questions and then accuse me of such matters. Ironic.

> This is an awful lot of words to avoid the question

What is it with those who support big government ascribing mendacity to their opponents? I'm not avoiding anything (except fallacies like ad hominem and false dilemmas).

> whether the small-government philosophy you personally subscribe to, whatever it may be

Here you admit that there is more than one possible outlook, yet you go on to produce this:

> If you prefer contracts, stop arguing, if you don't, explain why you think the operation of prisons is a proper function of a small government. It's not hard.

A false dilemma. Make your mind up, are there many types or only one?

Perhaps if my questions were answered I might feel more in the mood to answer those from people who accuse me of avoiding theirs.

> would prefer that government contract out prison services, or run them itself

My answer is either, it's irrelevant. The government is regulator and enforcer. It should promote (high) standards which it then enforces regardless of whom is running a service. Problems may arise when:

a) the one running the service is also the regulator, a clear conflict of interest and though in some cases permissible, it's not one for incredibly powerful entities like government.

b) the ones providing the service are also over-represented in government i.e. they have more than a vote, they have lobbying power (or straight up corruption) which in this case would lead to criminalising essentially non-criminal behaviours to produce whatever positive outcome for them and not for the populace they're supposed to serve. How many people are in gaol for marijuana possession?[1]

More criminals means more prisons, more tax money, more staff and budget (hence more power), more cheap labour… how does that sound anything like small government?

This[2] will come in handy for you.

[1] https://www.drugtestpanels.com/blogs/articles/jail-time-for-...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

i think the bit where you talked about Sweden being in the southern hemisphere places it in the top tier of 'confusing' for me...

there's the southern hemisphere's Sweden a.k.a. New Zealand, the big government paradise

I can't edit now but thanks for pointing out something in a reasonable way.

A program that does not implement its intention is buggy.

This is still starting from scratch. The design may be conventional, but you're benefiting from a modern approach to processes and design from the beginning.

I mean this is the best way possible, the Falcon 1 didn’t reinvent the wheel. They basically said what’s the simplest useful rocket for getting stuff to orbit copying as much of the design as they could, and built that.

I'd say that if you are gluing together a bunch of known-good components into a specific configuration that isn't a full copy of something else, you're building from scratch.

Take say all those identical looking highway overpasses. Even if one of those projects started with a blank file, applying standard solutions to standard problems isn’t starting from scratch.

You alright?