• 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
Small government in comparison to what? Large government in comparison to what? Please don't put words in my mouth. If you don't understand my posts, I'm more than happy to clarify.
You tell me. It was your post.

No, it means that government should be large enough to meet whatever problem society deems it should solve. As I clearly stated in my original post.
And I responded to that sentiment exactly. You err in assuming that problems of society require a "large enough" government. As I clearly stated, larger government is not necessary to solve larger problems. You asked "what if government is too small to solve a problem society wants solved"--and my question is simple. Give an example of when government is too small to solve a problem, and why the solution should be a larger government.
 
What are these kinds of threads? I mean seriously?

The US is a massive country. It has to have a massive Govt. Get over that already. Unless you intend on shrinking the US, it has to have a massive government.
 
Sadly its hard to imagine government doing much right. DMV, post office, and even the military is rather poorly run. I don't mean to say we don't need them, or that we should eliminate them all its just that people don't take pride in what they do and don't care if its done well. There is a belief (I think justified) that its nearly impossible to get fired from the grubbynutt. You almost have to be a convicted criminal (and sometimes thats' not enough) to get fired. Look at billy jeff who engages in a sexual twist with an intern - if a corporate CEO had done that he'd have been canned but we glorify it, excuse it, and don't think much of even lying about it under oath.

I have never had any issue renewing my DL. I can't even remember not recieveing or losing a piece of mail in the last 30+ years..and I have lived free all my life.
 
You tell me. It was your post.

My post is self-explanatory. If you have a problem with it you're going to have to point it out to me.


And I responded to that sentiment exactly. You err in assuming that problems of society require a "large enough" government.

No, I don't err and I'm not making an assumption. If a government is not large enough to meet the size of a particular problem, then it's too small. There's no way around this without playing word games.

Give an example of when government is too small to solve a problem

A government could have too small of a military. It could be too small to deal with natural disasters. It could be too small to maintain rule of law. It could be too small to deal with poverty.
 
Rule of law done very efficiently. There is a purpose for government in protecting freedom and the founders knew a weak government is bad just as an authoritarian one is. I basically believe in a strong freedom protecting government that is much more cost efficient than we currently are so that it doesn't undermine economic liberty. What we have are two parties that seem to want either a weak government or a very costly one.
 
I suppose it depends on your point of view.

If you believe that government should be a servant to the people, responsive to the will of the people, and accountable to the people, then you have no choice but to agree with me. For this to be the case, government needs to be relatively small, and as much as possible of the power that it wields needs to be concentrated as locally as possible among city/town-level governments, state governments, with the national government having only a very bare minimum of power and authority—exactly as our Nation's Constitution was written to establish.

If you believe that government should be the master, and that the people exist to serve the will of government, then you would be right, a big government, concentrated at the national level would certainly be “better” than a small government.

I agree, however I don't think a whole lot of people want a bigger govt. You'd have a hard time finding someone to say they want more gov't.. If you take the current gov't we have now and simply make it run better, more efficient, less money in politics...etc.. then I guess it probably would shrink simply out of necessity .. but like i said in a previous post, just because you make gov't smaller does not necessarily mean its not going to still be oppressive and tyrannical.
 
That's BS.

Self-reliance and minimal government IN the US has nothing to do with how we deal with other countries. In other words, we don't need to curtail individual freedom or subject our own citizens to massive amounts of government control and power in order to deal effectively with the world at large.

The absence of self-reliance isn't even a problem specific to government. How many Americans know *anything* about the accounting that goes into managing their 401k plans or their mortgages or their credit or anything? In the Old West, every man knew everything about all the wealth at his disposal, down to the last penny hidden in the floor boards. Similarly, most people were fair hunters when the need came to it, and more capable of exacting justice on those weeks where the Marshals were on rotation. Self-reliance is under attack from every aspect of our society, not just government; businesses don't want you to be self-reliant because a service you can do for yourself is one less they can provide to you. Banks need you to be non self-reliant so you won't handle your money or your investments personally.

On one level that's necessary to their competitive edge; cutting our personal management allows the American financing sector to become bigger and obtain more of a global presence. Individuals clamouring for a greater role in managing their own money (giving specific orders about where their money is used, for example) could prove . . . obstructive.

Furthermore, if there's anything the 2008 recession and China's emerging power demonstrates, its that lack of market interventionism is a huge security risk; if a core industry implodes, then our connections to other countries are weakened and replaced by rivals. Our ability to draw on revenue pay our army and debts is shaken. Domestic tensions increase and the democracy becomes dysfunctional.
 
Last edited:
Which do you feel is more important: A government that is smaller, or a government that can solve important problems more effectively?

Less Government is better Government.
 
Which do you feel is more important: A government that is smaller, or a government that can solve important problems more effectively?
Less government = better government.
 
Self-reliance and minimal government IN the US has nothing to do with how we deal with other countries. In other words, we don't need to curtail individual freedom or subject our own citizens to massive amounts of government control and power in order to deal effectively with the world at large.

Ah, a division at the national border. So you support closing yer local police and fire departments.
 
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.
Government is the problem.
 
Then society will fix it, not the government.

How would society solve a problem that affects 10,000 people? Lets say a corporation accidentally pollutes the drinking water of a town.
 
Better government, which could be either less or more depending on the situation and other factors.
 
Which do you feel is more important: A government that is smaller, or a government that can solve important problems more effectively?

So a small government that does a crappy job vs a large government that does a good job? That's not even a decision. Anybody who's experienced so much as an overzealous Home Owner's Association knows that it doesn't take a large governing body to make your life hell.
 
So I take it you'll be pressing yer congressional representatives to defund the Marine Corps.

Not really because National Defense is one the powers the Federal Government has under the Constitution. I would write to them to close down bases all over the world that are not necessary since the fall of the Soviet Union and cut down wasteful military spending yes.
 
How would society solve a problem that affects 10,000 people? Lets say a corporation accidentally pollutes the drinking water of a town.
That's a valid function of government. I was thinking more along the lines of "social problems" like acceptance of gays, afording retierment, and getting healthcare to the needy.
 
That's a valid function of government. I was thinking more along the lines of "social problems" like acceptance of gays, afording retierment, and getting healthcare to the needy.

So a government's job is to clean up after polluting corporations. That certainly opens a can of worms as to what the size and scope of government should be.
 
Not really because National Defense is one the powers the Federal Government has under the Constitution. I would write to them to close down bases all over the world that are not necessary since the fall of the Soviet Union and cut down wasteful military spending yes.

Those bases are still there because our money (trillions and trillions of dollars of it) and the citizens managing it are -- and *want to be* -- everywhere. Unless we're going to illegalize that kind of movement and become a hermit kingdom like Japan the mid-19th century, the bases are going to remain in operation.

The bases are far more necessary in the 21st century than they ever were even during the height of the Cold War; now that the Cold War is over, it is time to reap the profit of our victory, before the other emerging powers catch up to us.
 
National Defense is one the powers the Federal Government has under the Constitution.

So is promoting the general welfare.

That's a valid function of government. I was thinking more along the lines of "social problems" like acceptance of gays, afording retierment, and getting healthcare to the needy.

"acceptance of gays" — Bigots are free to reject away. If they violate anti-discrimination laws or regulations, appropriate enforcement action will be taken.

"afording retierment, and getting healthcare to the needy" — Social Security, Medicaid, and subsidies under the ACA can be ended at any time. Get the votes.
 
So a government's job is to clean up after polluting corporations.
Uh no. The way it works right now the corporations clean up their own mess, or hire a specialized corperation to clean it for them.

The government doesn't do the dirty work, they just make sure it's don.
 
So is promoting the general welfare.

That is not an enumerated power and is used by statists to justify all sorts of unconstitutional crap engaged in by the federal government

"acceptance of gays" — Bigots are free to reject away. If they violate anti-discrimination laws or regulations, appropriate enforcement action will be taken.

"afording retierment, and getting healthcare to the needy" — Social Security, Medicaid, and subsidies under the ACA can be ended at any time. Get the votes.

such laws on a federal level are not properly constitutional either
 
Back
Top Bottom