• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Less Government vs. Better Government

Less Government or Better Government?

  • Total voters
    57
US Conservative said:
You mean theres something worse than the DMV? :lol:
Click to expand...

Yeaaa... Try spending 18 hours a day for almost a week sweating your balls off in a basic training reception center with a thousand other recruits, jumping from one endless line to another, while getting screamed at by drill sergeants if you much as breathe the wrong way.

If you don't hate humanity in general with the passion of a million burning suns by the end of the third day, you're a damn saint. :lol:
 
Gathomas88 said:
Yeaaa... Try spending 18 hours a day for almost a week sweating your balls off in a basic training reception center with a thousand other recruits, jumping from one endless line to another, while getting screamed at by drill sergeants if you much as breathe the wrong way.

If you don't hate humanity in general with the passion of a million burning suns by the end of the third day, you're a damn saint. :lol:
Click to expand...

Sounds like a blast, but I do sincerely thank you for going through it.
 
Amadeus said:
Natural disasters. Poverty. Crime. National security.
Click to expand...

So you think we should have a larger military? Because the National Guard usually takes care of natural disasters, along with FEMA, and the military also takes care of our national security. And what additional agencies do you think we need, and I don't think I remember you saying if you preferred a larger or a smaller government either.

Also, since on other threads you seem to not trust the government to make the right decisions at all, why would you not want a smaller government that is easier to keep an eye, probably more efficient because there would be much less bureaucratic red tape to get things done and less agencies for things to go through for "approvals" and "authorizations" and such things?

I mean, you really have not done a very good job at explaining your own position yet you expect it from others?
 
US Conservative said:
Sounds like a blast, but I do sincerely thank you for going through it.
Click to expand...

Thank you, sir. :)

On the bright side, getting shuttled off to actual basic training was almost a relief after that cluster ****. It was less crowded there, at least, and I got to shoot things on occasion.

Ya know... Even if it did mean getting my ass chewed up one side and down the other everyday for almost two straight months by a 6'5" South African Drill Sergeant with PTSD. :lol:
 
Gathomas88 said:
Thank you, sir. :)

On the bright side, getting shuttled off to actual basic training was almost a relief after that cluster ****. It was less crowded there, at least, and I got to shoot things on occasion.

Ya know... Even if it did mean getting my ass chewed up one side and down the other everyday for almost two straight months by a 6'5" South African Drill Sergeant with PTSD. :lol:
Click to expand...

Sounds like fun. I have a few south african friends, one is smoking hot and she sounds like mary poppins. :cool:

Im guessing that wasn't the type you met. :lol:
 
ChrisL said:
So you think we should have a larger military?
Click to expand...



Because the National Guard usually takes care of natural disasters, along with FEMA, and the military also takes care of our national security.
Click to expand...

I forgot, those are Libertarian agencies. My bad.
 
Amadeus said:




I forgot, those are Libertarian agencies. My bad.
Click to expand...


Hmm. I find it very interesting how you avoid all the questions asked of yourself, yet you feel as if people are some how obligated to answer your questions. I think I probably said this to you in the past, but that's shady.
 
Amadeus said:
If you believe that government is so abhorrent that it sucks even when its working properly, I would opt for the smallest government possible.
Click to expand...
Sucks when its working properly? Really? Please show me examples of how any over bloated bureaucracy is working properly? Please enlighten me on how Social Security/Medicare is going to be there for those in their 30's and 40's that are currently paying into it? Please share with me how this debt we now carry is going to be addressed when the number of people who are actually working and paying taxes is shrinking? Do tell me how one overcomes this when we have too many people wanting a free ride on the bus and not enough bus drivers to operate the buses? Please tell me how well the VA is operating after increasing its funding almost 70% and vets are dying waiting to see a doctor? Tell me how great Obamacare is when millions lost their coverage because of it and millions who signed up are discovering they are not covered! Tell me how freaking wonderful the EPA is operating by regulating industries to the point they are on life support and people are losing their jobs over it which amounts to more loss revenue to pay for all the other sh*t so many want. Please oh please enlighten me how government is doing such a good job!
 
Amadeus said:
I am absolutely surprised by your assessment, especially since I've explained myself in posts that you have quoted and you're still oblivious. This is a question of ideological priorities: do you want government that is small, or a government that works. That is the beginning and end of the question.
Click to expand...

You just did it again. Your question implies that smaller government cannot work, without any reference to what smaller means or even what "works" means. I think you need to really think about how you are wording this question.

Amadeus said:
If you believe that government is so abhorrent that it sucks even when its working properly, I would opt for the smallest government possible.
Click to expand...

Define working properly. What it is with you using so many subjective terms in trying to get your point across?

Amadeus said:
Natural disasters. Poverty. Crime. National security.
Click to expand...

Crime. That's easy to solve. By definition a crime is a violation of the law. Eliminate the law and you've solved crime. Not very practical though. And why do you think that it is the government's job to solve poverty? And how is it even supposed to solve natural disasters?
 
TurtleDude said:
weak response. again-less government can be measured. Better government cannot because what socialist income redistributionists call better, many of us call worse
Click to expand...
LOL...what stupid response, how in the f#ck is maximizing well being of citizens "worse"?

Worse than what?
 
American said:
That's not the purpose of govt.
Click to expand...
Sure it isn't, maximizing the welfare of citizens is not what we, the people, want.

I swear, what in the hell is wrong with you cons? How many times did you get hit in the head to reach this state of mind?
 
maquiscat said:
The BS is yours. "Better" and "Worse" are purely subjective terms. You can't get around that. Period. So while you may find a certain size or a certain type of government better, that doesn't mean that everyone finds it better. And vice versa.
Click to expand...
Amazing.....we somehow cannot measure whether a population has a better standard of living, is healthier, lives longer.....nope, that is beyond our capabilities.

FFS.....there is something really wrong when some people tell themselves this.
 
johndylan1 said:
Restrictions upon greed?

What's that supposed to mean? Who are you or why would anyone want to advocate restrictions on other's ambitions?
Click to expand...
Some folks (turtle) are so obsessed with maximizing their wealth....to the detriment of others.

So much so, that they will go as far as denying the ability of objectively measuring the effectiveness of govt in providing various protections to its citizens.
 
vesper said:
Sucks when its working properly? Really? Please show me examples of how any over bloated bureaucracy is working properly? Please enlighten me on how Social Security/Medicare is going to be there for those in their 30's and 40's that are currently paying into it? Please share with me how this debt we now carry is going to be addressed when the number of people who are actually working and paying taxes is shrinking? Do tell me how one overcomes this when we have too many people wanting a free ride on the bus and not enough bus drivers to operate the buses? Please tell me how well the VA is operating after increasing its funding almost 70% and vets are dying waiting to see a doctor? Tell me how great Obamacare is when millions lost their coverage because of it and millions who signed up are discovering they are not covered! Tell me how freaking wonderful the EPA is operating by regulating industries to the point they are on life support and people are losing their jobs over it which amounts to more loss revenue to pay for all the other sh*t so many want. Please oh please enlighten me how government is doing such a good job!
Click to expand...
Very serious accusations .
I'd love to hear from government employees to hear their side of this issue.
My opinion - considering the quality of our people, I think our government is OK...but, as with private business, it can be better..
Suggestions ?
Listen to the people, but, listen carefully.
IMO, polls are male bovine feces, unless conducted properly and fairly...
I suspect too many people here "hate" government and cannot argue sensibly.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Sure it isn't, maximizing the welfare of citizens is not what we, the people, want.

I swear, what in the hell is wrong with you cons? How many times did you get hit in the head to reach this state of mind?
Click to expand...

None of your twisting will make your point for you. Neither will your personal attacks on other members. But that's your way isn't, that's precisely what your known for on this site, and why no one takes you seriously.
 
ChrisL said:
Hmm. I find it very interesting how you avoid all the questions asked of yourself, yet you feel as if people are some how obligated to answer your questions. I think I probably said this to you in the past, but that's shady.
Click to expand...

I never said you were obligated to answer any of my questions.
 
vesper said:
Sucks when its working properly?
Click to expand...

I said even when its working properly, not that it is working properly, or even that it has ever worked properly. That's why I gave you a choice between less government and better.

"Better" is your license to imagine government the way you want it to be, including its size, scope and purpose. Despite this freedom, many people still opted for less government.
 
maquiscat said:
Crime. That's easy to solve. By definition a crime is a violation of the law. Eliminate the law and you've solved crime. Not very practical though.
Click to expand...

So what's your point?

And why do you think that it is the government's job to solve poverty?
Click to expand...

Not end poverty, but to address it. If there's a war and thousands are crippled beyond the point of employment, do we just send street sweepers to push them into a gutter?

And how is it even supposed to solve natural disasters?
Click to expand...

Disaster relief.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Amazing.....we somehow cannot measure whether a population has a better standard of living, is healthier, lives longer.....nope, that is beyond our capabilities.

FFS.....there is something really wrong when some people tell themselves this.
Click to expand...

Lives longer is not subjective, but objective. It's a straight number of years. Easily measured. What is the measurement of "better"? There is no set measurement because it's a subjective value.

We can compare a modern day Native American and a Native American from say just before the English settled on this continent. The Modern man might believe that he has the better life because he has modern medicine and advanced technology and is free from any mystic mumbo jumbo. The man from the past might believe that he has the better life because he lives in the clean air and has healthy food and is surrounded by family and tribe.

The measure of whether something is better than another things is purely in the view of any given person comparing the two. Thus two people comparing the same two things can come up with different answers and neither is wrong. Because "better" is a subjective value.

Amadeus said:
So what's your point?

Not end poverty, but to address it. If there's a war and thousands are crippled beyond the point of employment, do we just send street sweepers to push them into a gutter?

Disaster relief.
Click to expand...

You are changing your words around. Moving the goal posts. Although I will give you credit and say that you are not really thinking about how you are wording some of your arguments. You said "solve" for all the above. For the first, crime, my point is that sometimes solving the problem doesn't necessarily give you the results you think it will. Be careful what you ask for. You just might get it. With poverty, you again throw out an hyperbole argument coupled with the premise that it is the government's job to take care of these people and not society's job, and yes these are separate entities. Disaster relief doesn't solve natural disasters, and again there is your premise that it is the government's job verses society's job.
 
TurtleDude said:
that's silly. Libertarians believe that government is essential to resolve disputes among citizens, to provide for national defense, etc. Anarchists do not
Click to expand...

Well yes, that is the idea. However, it doesn't seem to ever be successfully put into practice anywhere. A government that resolves disputes among citizens, provides for defense, and so on always ends up much bigger than what Libertarians envision. Which is my point, its a utopian notion. Any government that is as small as libertarians envision ends up being an anarchy, any government that does what you want, ends up being much bigger than you want it to be.

In all the nations of the world, there is not a single developed nation that with libertarian governance, thats pretty damning against libertarian philosophy if you ask me. Its a nice idea, but it obviously doesn't translate to the real world.
 
maquiscat said:
You are changing your words around. Moving the goal posts. Although I will give you credit and say that you are not really thinking about how you are wording some of your arguments.
Click to expand...

I'm not changing my words. I'm extrapolating on what I said, since you challenged me.

With poverty, you again throw out an hyperbole argument coupled with the premise that it is the government's job to take care of these people and not society's job, and yes these are separate entities. Disaster relief doesn't solve natural disasters, and again there is your premise that it is the government's job verses society's job.
Click to expand...

We have a different definition of government in how it relates to problem solving within a society.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom