Which do you feel is more important: A government that is smaller, or a government that can solve important problems more effectively?
Which do you feel is more important: A government that is smaller, or a government that can solve important problems more effectively?
Which do you feel is more important: A government that is smaller, or a government that can solve important problems more effectively?
Which do you feel is more important: A government that is smaller, or a government that can solve important problems more effectively?
You have a false underwritten premise that the two are mutually exclusive.
This is like asking - better cancer or less cancer?
I would say the two go hand in hand. A large government with many laws and departments and agencies results in many more bureaucrats and hoops to jump through. A smaller government is more streamlined and more likely to be efficient, specializing in its limited roles more effectively than spreading itself everywhere.Which do you feel is more important: A government that is smaller, or a government that can solve important problems more effectively?
I would say the two go hand in hand. A large government with many laws and departments and agencies results in many more bureaucrats and hoops to jump through. A smaller government is more streamlined and more likely to be efficient, specializing in its limited roles more effectively than spreading itself everywhere.
Which do you feel is more important: A government that is smaller, or a government that can solve important problems more effectively?
You're question assumes that 1: a bigger government is more effective and 2: that a smaller government cannot be effective. In reality though a small government can be just as effective as a larger government at solving important problems. Your question is also subjective. "Important problems" can be purely subjective as what is important to you may not be important to someone else.
Again, there is no assumption in the question, and larger government isn't specified.
Yes, there is, and while "larger government" isn't specified it is implied by stating "A government that is smaller, or...". It is that "or" when combined with "smaller" that makes the implication. Whether you meant it or not, that is the effect of your post. It is further reinforced in your subsequent posts when you state things like "What if a government is too small" such as in your post# 11.
Which do you feel is more important: A government that is smaller, or a government that can solve important problems more effectively?
A government that is smaller doesn't guarantee that it will be better in any way. It could be worse.
What if a government is too small to tackle a problem that society wants solved? Then it is not a better government, it is a smaller government for the sake of being small.
Smaller government is better government.
I'm afraid you're mistaken. What I said was that if you focus on making government small, rather than effective, then your goal is not to solve society's problems. Which may or may not be in line with your ideology.
If smaller government is better, then no government must be best. That is the logical conclusion of your argument.
But the primary error in your query here is the presumption that government is the best way to solve most problems.
No, my presumption is that cooperation and collective problem solving are required for certain problems. How do you solve a national problem without government?