Should Government be more or less?

Remove all ads!

We need Governments to make and enforce laws that make it possible for us to leave in reasonable safety and harmony but how intrusive should it be?

I personally am in favor of less Government and more individual responsibility. Government should be defined by the people governed and be responsive and responsible to them.

Governments are made up of people who are only human and therefore imperfect. No Government should have absolute power anymore than one person should have absolute power.

 

Definitely less. I'm a Libertarian and find our current Republicrats to be disgusting. However, I will limit my rant about the government this time. I've found that the Federal Government often sticks it's nose where it doesn't belong while at the same time ignoring or badly bungling its true responsibilities. They routinely ignore the people's will in order to consolidate their power and enrich their backers. Less government power and more individual liberty and responsibility is what I believe in.

 

By less government, it means them stepping out of things that aren't their business, then yes. By overlegislating things, they waste time they could be using on more pressing problems, and resources they could use to stimulate the economy or helping the poor. Heck, they could even steal more money and we wouldn't notice...

 

: Gnarfflinger

That is what I mean. I believe in state and local rights. What a large city such as New York wants and what Smalltown, Il wants are not the same. When the Federal government steps and makes laws they apply to everyone. The more power Federal Government has the less power I as an individual have.

 

You know, I find this strange. Most people in the U.S. favor *less* government ivolvement. However, some of the biggest campaign issues we're going to see over the next year or so are going to involve *more* government involvement. The strange thing is, the same people who seem to say they want less government are also in favor of the things that will create more government.

Perhaps some examples will make this more clear:

1. The most obvious is universal healthcare. Most people like the idea - they just don't like the idea that someone has to pay for it. I like Barak's and Edward's plan that would up the taxes on people making over $250K and $200K, respectively, because that ain't me, and isn't likely to be me anytime soon. Still, it can't be argued that if we had universal healthcare, this would be yet another layer of government intruding into many people's lives.

2. How about immigration? Another layer of government involvement, even if I acknowledge that the current things on the table are fundamentally flawed and unworkable. (Yes, brilliant idea - make the people that have been living here for years go back to Mexico and pay a $5,000 fine - like half their annual salary - before they come back.)

 

LESS government? Smaller government?

Could it be we have some closet republicans on the boards?

 

Immigration is one of the few areas where they SHOULD be involved. Naturally they're bungling it badly.

 

I think the role of government is very important, and I greatly appreciate having one. I think anyone who reactively derides "big government" should stop to think about the safety of the streets they live on, the police protection they recieve, the edibility of the food they eat and the accuracy of the labels printed on them...etc. etc. forever. The government, by and large, ensures our high quality of life in the civilized west and should be respected and appreciated.

That said, it's not without its flaws. Easily-abusable social programs like welfare, corrupt public officials, political considerations that benefit the politicians deep-pocketed backers over the people who elected them...etc. Fortunately these are things can be worked on and improved. Never eliminated completely, mind you - I'm not naive. But minimized.

I want the government to be smaller, leaner, and far more efficient than it is. Government provides the means for a society to do an immense amount of good for itself. So when I say I want a "smaller" government, what I'm really saying is I don't like my tax money wasted on "bridges to nowhere" and other idiotic boondoggle pork nonsense. Or lazy slobs who are allowed to easily navigate the system into allowing them to stay on welfare indefinitely (when it was originally intended to be a means to help people get back on their feet...a very admirable role for any government to play).

Etc.

We really need a soap box smiley.

 

From where I'm sitting, it looks as though the Republicans/Neo-Cons have bloated government to a size that the average liberal wouldn't dream of over the past six years. Most - if not all - of the growth has been funded by deficit spending, which we're going to have to pay off someday.

Republicans have proven that they no longer stand for smaller government.

IMHO, I think any federal government should exist to protect the basic civil rights of the public and field a military force to protect its constituents from from physical harm.

[ June 08, 2007, 16:35: Message edited by: Elthas ]

 

The safety of my streets depends upon my local government not on the Federal Government. The more bloated an powerful the Federal Government becomes the less powerful and more dependent upon the Federal Government my local government becomes. The local government is more attuned to the needs of the local residents and more responsive to the wishes of their constituents. Those elected to represent me are local people, sometimes people I know or have at least met. We have town meetings which I may and have attended.

 

Well said, Nakia. The problem is that the Oligarchs continue to expand the Federal Government at the expense of the State and local governments. They bully the states into implementing their wishes, which trickles down to the local government. The Federal Government has absolutely zero interest in the citizens welfare. The local government is more likely to have an interest since they have to live in the community too. Unfortunately I'm pretty pessimistic about it ever changing since the American citizens are being conditioned to accept the welfare state. The Oligarchy in Washington has a free hand to do what they want while America slumbers in front of the television and toils to pay the taxes that support the illegal and the indolent. Such conditions help contribute to the inevitable increase in the size of government with little benefit to the governed.

 

To continue my own personal experience I have lived in both small and large towns/cities. Each has its positives and negatives. I have lived in New York City and I love the big Apple but here in our much smaller community I find the local officials much nicer and more caring. They do try to help. The larger the government the more removed from the people it becomes. Which is why I am a strong supporter of States Rights.

Even in New York state I was able to partiipate in volunteer lobbying. I joined with others having a common interest or agenda and went to Albany to meet with our elected officials. Of course I could be wrong but it is my belief that when it comes to dealing with Washington it is money that counts. Can your group afford to hire a high powered lobbyist to present your point of view?

 

I don't believe they ever really did, except for maybe a Republican fossil, like Barry Goldwater. No one can seriously believe that Republicans have been for less government, or for less government spending, in the last twenty-five years or so. The current Republican regime has been way worse than anything I have see in my lifetime regarding spending taxpayer dollars at a frantic pace, almost as if it were their own personal bank accounts.

But the size of government doesn't really matter all that much - it is how well it protects the rights of its citizens that matters. It is, afterall, the People's government. The government should be whatever "size" is required to fullfill the needs of its people.

Also, if we agree, as citizens, upon a certain set of principles, then it is the People's government that must help to uphold those principles. Currently, all levels of government does little in upholding any principles that most Americans would recognize as their own. Hence, the deep dissatisfaction with it - whether dems or repubs. The question then becomes, what kind of principles do we stand for as a nation? Does the government reflect those principles? Is it still "our" government?

 

I like big governments. People are morons and they need someone to make sure they dont hurt themselves too badly.

A Swedish historian once said something I found very interesting. He said that in Sweden the State (be it king or democratically elected government) allied itself early with the people against the capital (historically the nobility) instead of as in most countries where the state allies itself with the capital against the people. His point was that this has led to a very strong belief and trust in the government in Swedish people. The king and the state have been the average joes buddy against the evil oppressive noblemen or factory owners. So I have been raised in a world where the suspicioun must of you feel at the thought of government intrusion is replaced by a sense of confidence and safety. I have never really been given a reason to resent government intrusion, they usually mean that things will finally be worked out and done right.

So, remove the power from the slackjawed yokels and give it to the educated bureaucrat appointed by your democratically elected government because he knows what is best for you.

 

That may have been the case in 18th and 19th century, but today not so much.

Bureaucracy is more often violently against change than not, because change means deviation from accustomed work patterns. And since bureaucrats and politicians are doomed to work together closely, the former have a lot of influence with the latter.


I say Yes to a more effective government, like DR said. On the more liberal (using the word in it's traditional sense here) issues like state involvment in people's lifes I say it should be decided in a case by case manner.

Health care for example should be regulated by the state, but not necessarily provided.
Protection from hazards to health (like smoking) should be enforced strongly by the government, though.

OTOH, I am strongly liberal in my opinion towards people's responibility for themselves. Say, if someone really wants to smoke, he should be able to do it. But not where he can pester (or damage) other people with it.

Oh, and stop invading my privacy, you freaking hardheads.

 

There are things governments excells at, and one of those things is disaster relief in response to floods and other disasters - unless you gut the federal first responders and break the organisation of course. There are vital government functions in which privatisation must not be allowed. Public servants are dedicated to the greater good rather than to profit.

One thing the proponents of privatisation forget or omit is that demand dictates the price. If demand is high, prices rise for limited resources. IMO privatising disaster relief for instance is an act of lunacy. You end up paying up what you think you saved in the end, probably more, in that sense privatisation is like a credit. You pay interest rates on top of what it's worth.

If you start haggling the price of rescue while people are drowning, you won't look so good. Aside of being accused to be evil, you feed the political opponents. That encourages politicos then to be generous with the price tag to avoid the bad press. Thus no bid, no check contracts. Swell.

As a taxpayer I have more leverage for control under federal and state law to exercise control over the government and vital functions than over private entities. So in all likelyhood privatisation does the taxpayer a greater disservice than waste. Waste inside the government you can adress through political control. The relationships between the state and it's private contractors are usually confidential. Transparency is the key. States do have mechanisms for transparency. Companies do not need that, do not want that and tend to not have that. Lack of transparency breeds corruption, which is worse than waste.

When the **** hits the fan, you're forced to hire private paramilitaries like Blackwater to restore order, and pay dearly, or rely on private aid organisations, no matter what's their agenda. You can't afford to be picky. And once broken it either takes a lot of money or a long time to restore capabilities lost.

Worse, as Katrina and that latest tornado suggest, privatisation of vital state functions undermines the credibility of the state if it is unable to protect its citizen from as basic a harm as a disaster that is common in the region ('tornado alley' anyone?). If the inept relief effort in New Orleans was scary, it was in my view topped by the dissolution of the city's first responders and police force. Apparently not even they themselves believed in their city's or the state's ability to protect their families and abandoned their posts. Well, if anyone knows, they should. That should be absolutely alarming.

It is inherently destabilising. Undermining the credibility of a state to protect citizens from harm is what terrorists aim their acts of terror on. So a state undermining it's capablities to protect it's citizen by privatising such capabilities is acting suicidal. Left alone by the state the citizens will turn toward ties that do guarantee safety. What use it is if it cannot even do that? Think about militias. How can a state expect loyalty from a citizen that gets little in return?

[ June 08, 2007, 16:38: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Something many proponents for less state intrusion forget is that the state is us. We are the state. We are not the corporations or the private sphere. Some of us are part of a small bit of the private sphere while all of us are the state. The private sphere only looks to their own short termed well being while the state supposedly at least looks for the wellbeing of the community as a whole which means you and me.

 

Too true. The comment you quoted from my post was more a reference to the rhetoric of the GOP about being the party of "small government".

Their rhetoric does not/did not reflect the reality of their policies.