• 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
I want better government. There are effective governments out there, just look at Scandinavia. Would you rather live in Norway (big but effective government) or Haiti (very, very small government)?

That said, I think that a better government is going to be much more decentralized with many of its functions than the one we have.
 
Agree that our current government should be much more decentralized. I think many on the Right take federalism too far though, just as many on the Left go too far the other way.
 
I can agree, kind of.... However larger entities are not nimble nor efficient. Think about the cost and time involved with just providing for oversight and accountability measures. I some times wonder if ignoring minor fraud would be cheaper than compliance regulations and oversight measures.... just a thought.

Larger compared to what? That's the key. While larger and smaller are not subjective they are relative and contextual based. So depending upon the starting point yes indeed larger can end up being more nimble and efficient than smaller. So the tip over point where continued growth starts becoming more inefficient can vary and be dependent upon a variety of factors. There is also such a point as too small within government. Of course there is also that point of how are we defining smaller and larger in context to government.

Complete and utter BS spouted by those with an agenda to not examine what form of govt is best.....because they are so bent on not wanting any restrictions upon their greed.

The life outcomes of the least fortunate is very often a measurement of the effectiveness of government.

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.
 
Complete and utter BS spouted by those with an agenda to not examine what form of govt is best.....because they are so bent on not wanting any restrictions upon their greed.

The life outcomes of the least fortunate is very often a measurement of the effectiveness of government.

Restrictions upon greed?

What's that supposed to mean? Who are you or why would anyone want to advocate restrictions on other's ambitions?
 
So what you are essentially telling me is that small government is incapable of corruption? I believe there is some African dictators that would snicker at that notion.

No that is not essentially what I was saying.

I never mentoined corruption until now you did. I meant what I said.

As far as corruoption is concerned a smaller government is just as likely to have corruption going on within it as a large government.

This still gives people an advantage for small government however as there is simply lless corruption due to the fact that there are fewer people in a smaller government to succomb to corruption. In addition it is easy to find and expose corruoption in a smaller government simply because it is harder to hide and fewer places to look for it. When there are fewer corrupt people and fewer places for them to hide they are easier to catch.
 
I want better government. There are effective governments out there, just look at Scandinavia. Would you rather live in Norway (big but effective government) or Haiti (very, very small government)?

That said, I think that a better government is going to be much more decentralized with many of its functions than the one we have.

It is very debateble that Norway or any scandanavian government is better.

Your choices are not valid as they are too limited and other choices exist. A very small government in a first world nation like the USA works best.
 
It is very debateble that Norway or any scandanavian government is better.

Your choices are not valid as they are too limited and other choices exist. A very small government in a first world nation like the USA works best.

There are no very small governments in first world fully developed nations. Perhaps that should tell you something... ;)
 
Which do you feel is more important: A government that is smaller, or a government that can solve important problems more effectively?

That is an interesting dichotomy. What in the world makes you think that a larger government can solve important problems more effectively?
 
There are no very small governments in first world fully developed nations. Perhaps that should tell you something... ;)

No nation is fully developed. Development is on going.

No evidence proves or suggests big government is necessary for it.

Much suggests the opposite.
 
No nation is fully developed. Development is on going.

No evidence proves or suggests big government is necessary for it.

Much suggests the opposite.

Agreed. Its remarkable how many statists here think that adopting some socialist govt model from one of the nordic nations would work here. They always want something for nothing.

I like the avatar/name btw.
 
I think less government would be better because there would be a lot less red tape, it would be far less costly, and perhaps our government could get it's **** together for a change instead of spending all of our money! :mrgreen:
 
Which do you feel is more important: A government that is smaller, or a government that can solve important problems more effectively?

Why did you word the poll that way? It's like a trick question.
 
No nation is fully developed. Development is on going.

No evidence proves or suggests big government is necessary for it.

Much suggests the opposite.

Libertarianism always boils down to the same kind argument that the Communists use: "Communism isn't a failure, its never really been tried before."

Maybe I am too much of a pragmatist, but all I can say is that there is not a first world libertarian nation on earth tells me something.
 
Libertarianism always boils down to the same kind argument that the Communists use: "Communism isn't a failure, its never really been tried before."

Maybe I am too much of a pragmatist, but all I can say is that there is not a first world libertarian nation on earth tells me something.

What exactly does it tell you?
 
Libertarianism always boils down to the same kind argument that the Communists use: "Communism isn't a failure, its never really been tried before."

Maybe I am too much of a pragmatist, but all I can say is that there is not a first world libertarian nation on earth tells me something.

The difference is libertarianism has been tried in the first 100 years of the USA and it worked very well.

WHich is precisely what led to the on going development of the first world which has been slowed down by big government.
 
What exactly does it tell you?

It tells me that libertarianism is every bit as utopian of an ideal as communism. The reason why no first world developed country has a libertarian model of governance is that it probably doesn't work. I believe in moderation, somewhere between the extremes are working models of governance.
 
The difference is libertarianism has been tried in the first 100 years of the USA and it worked very well.

WHich is precisely what led to the on going development of the first world which has been slowed down by big government.

We weren't a first world nation then, try again. You are comparing pre-industrialization to today's economy / world. It's an absurd comparison. Moreover, you must be arguing that a libertarian government was one that tolerated slavery, wholesale genocide of native peoples, and so on.
 
We weren't a first world nation then, try again. You are comparing pre-industrialization to today's economy / world. It's an absurd comparison. Moreover, you must be arguing that a libertarian government was one that tolerated slavery, wholesale genocide of native peoples, and so on.

What is the difference between libertarians and anarchists anyway?
 
What is the difference between libertarians and anarchists anyway?

When you get down to it, none that I can see. At least between the big "L" libertarians and anarchists.
 
When you get down to it, none that I can see. At least between the big "L" libertarians and anarchists.

that's silly. Libertarians believe that government is essential to resolve disputes among citizens, to provide for national defense, etc. Anarchists do not
 
When you get down to it, none that I can see. At least between the big "L" libertarians and anarchists.

Maybe libertarians believe in very small unobtrusive government, while anarchists believe in no government at all.
 
That is an interesting dichotomy. What in the world makes you think that a larger government can solve important problems more effectively?

Apparently I suck at asking questions, but to clarify the confusion, larger government wasn't presented as an option. The choice is between a government that is small, or a government that can solve problems effectively. It is a question of ideological priority -- smaller or better.
 
Apparently I suck at asking questions, but to clarify the confusion, larger government wasn't presented as an option. The choice is between a government that is small, or a government that can solve problems effectively. It is a question of ideological priority -- smaller or better.

I think a smaller government would be able to solve problems more effectively. That's half the problem, I believe, is that our government is humongous and just keeps growing and growing, like an evil monster that eats money.

Also, you say you believe our government lied to us and went to war, yet you want MORE government? That's insanity dude. INSANITY.
 
Back
Top Bottom