Definitely, and I think this is the last level so I'll try to make a better conclusion.

> It seems like you have shifted your argument from small government to small federal government. Do you also suggest the size of the state governments should be small as well?

I suggest the people of the state decide their own fate and are protected from Federal overreach, as is their right.

> 1) Removing those regulations federally won't make their behavior any better and 2) shifting responsibility to the states creates the same problem.

You see this as a problem, I see this as a solution. Each state has its own culture and its own needs, and the Feds are incredibly insensitive to that.

> People are supposed to influence policy through their representatives, but they've mostly been bought and paid for by corporate interests.

And if states have more power over themselves, the people could more successfully protest policy in their favor. It's much harder to fight MegaCorp at Federal level than at home state level.

> I never mentioned raising the minimum wage. However, for small businesses, when the minimum wage goes up, they raise their prices. More people can afford higher prices because the minimum wage goes up.

As someone who has family that owns a small restaurant, I have to disagree with your simple assessment. The employer has to start paying the higher wage well before they receive the benefits you're suggesting, and we're really hoping that customers don't fall off because of the higher cost. And yes: some do. Not to mention this isn't an easy segue like inflation, it's a direct hike. Not to mention the business now has to reprint their menus, great.

> Inflation happens whether or not you raise the minimum wage.

Would you be surprised if I said I was a fan of returning the the Gold Standard?

> Additionally there's plenty of room for regulations that protect small businesses from MegaCorps' predatory practices and leveraged monopolies/oligopolies.

I agree, at the local level. You know, customized. Local Democracy. Not one-size-fits-all.

> And from the perspective of a 19th century coal miner...

I imagine coal mining was lucrative, and the worker was well aware of danger. However I also understand that with innovation and new markets, undiscovered risks are waiting to be understood.

> If your state is badly gerrymandered, and the reps are bought (much more cheaply) by corporate interests, you still won't get that.

I believe that given back power, states would absolutely flourish and thrive. Well actually, I think we've gotten really far off track with the framework of the Constitution, and that's why things are difficult. It feels like a square peg/triangle hole situation.

I don't mind regulations, but I want the people and their elected representatives to be in charge, as is their right. I just wish people would stop pretending like throwing more regulations into the mix will solve everything. I also wish people would admit that regulations have side-effects as well, that disproportionately affect those in need.

I feel inclined to cite something about the failed Drug War, and how local communities have been standing up the the Feds with their own opposing but better policy, but I'll leave this instead. Something we can handle at the local level, but good luck getting the Feds to help. Be sure and follow the Facebook post at the bottom of the article.

https://www.activistpost.com/2018/02/cops-raid-licensed-chef...