• 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
Gimmesometruth said:
Your argument is so confused, so out of touch with the context of the argument.

The argument at hand is whether or not the effectiveness of govt can be measured.

Try actually addressing the context.
Click to expand...

Governments role was initially and should be limited in scope. An effective government is one which lets people live their lives without intrusion into their daily lives, yet fulfills the obligation of protection both domestically and overseas. Having a need to measure government effectiveness simply states to me there's too much government.
 
CycloneWanderer said:
Sure it can. I believe the greatest struggle you'd have is defining 'effectiveness.'
Click to expand...
Achem....

Gimmesometruth said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
vesper said:
OMG I can't believe you posted that garbage. There is nothing that brings the "betterment of man" than to teach him to be responsible for his own choices in life and to allow him to pay the consequences for them. In doing so he learns. To not allow a man that life lesson destroys him.
Click to expand...
Talk about garbage! You completely avoid facing up to your own conspiracy crap......while still avoiding the main topic, whether govt can or cannot create an environment for the betterment of man.....and whether this can be objectively measured.

Your argument is still stuck on the stupid notion that we have fewer working age adults in the US!
 
Ockham said:
Governments role was initially and should be limited in scope.
Click to expand...
Humans were "initially" limited in scope, you are simply defending Luddites.

Again, you cannot, will not address the premise......can the effectiveness of govt be measured.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Achem....
Click to expand...

What part of "Having a need to measure government effectiveness simply states to me there's too much government." is confusing you?

And do please use my proper DP name from this moment on.
 
Ockham said:
What part of "Having a need to measure government effectiveness simply states to me there's too much government." is confusing you?.
Click to expand...
As with all of your replies to me in this thread, this is a thoughtless post. Simply saying "less govt is best" IS a value judgement on effectiveness. Your statement is in conflict with itself, thoughtless. The "need" is implied in the judgement....duh.

This is just an alternative to not wanting to make an examination.....while doing so. It is thoughtless.

And do please use my proper DP name from this moment on.
Click to expand...
Again, you have this idea that stupid, sophomoric humor is a substitute for thoughtful argument. Thoughtlessness strikes again.
 
Last edited:
Gimmesometruth said:
As with all of your replies to me in this thread, this is a thoughtless post. Simply saying "less govt is best" IS a value judgement on effectiveness.
Click to expand...
Yet your asking about measurement techniques. My answer is simple: If you have to measure you have too much.

Again I'll ask, what is confusing you?

Gimmesometruth said:
This is just an alternative to not wanting to make an examination.....while doing so. It is thoughtless.
Click to expand...
The only alternative I'm providing is a view into the obvious, which for some reason you cannot see.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Achem....
Click to expand...

I fail to see why the "life outcomes" of the "least fortunate" is a meaningful measurement of government effectiveness. The primary reason for this failure is the vagueness of the the terms "life outcomes" and "least fortunate." What do you mean when you say "life outcomes?" What is your basis for determining who is "least fortunate" and how will their relative impoverishment be judged? Because of this lack of clarity, meaningful analysis of any potentially causal relationship between government activity and "life outcomes of the least fortunate" is impossible. Most of all, the justification for judging the effectiveness of a government by the least fortunate in society is making a broad assumption that everyone agrees that primary role of government is to improve the quality of life for the least privelidged.

I might accept your measurement of effectiveness if you were looking at the relative health of a society. But I think that your simple definition is not suited to determining a measurement of government effectiveness.
 
Ockham said:
Yet your (sic) asking about measurement techniques. My answer is simple: If you have to measure you have too much.
Click to expand...
FFS!

Your streak of thoughtless comment continues! "Too much" as compared to "less"....is inherently a measurement! You are eating your tail, your argument is consuming itself, reduced to absurdity!

But then that is what all your arguments are......absurd, sophomoric.

Again I'll ask, what is confusing you?
The only alternative I'm providing is a view into the obvious, which for some reason you cannot see.
Click to expand...
You are confused, arguing for Luddites, presenting absurd argument that self destructs over and over.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
FFS!

Your streak of thoughtless comment continues! "Too much" as compared to "less"....is inherently a measurement! You are eating your tail, your argument is consuming itself, reduced to absurdity!

But the that is what all your arguments are......absurd, sophomoric.
Click to expand...
So you have no substance to contribute ... got it.

Gimmesometruth said:
You are confused, arguing for Luddites, presenting absurd argument that self destructs over and over.
Click to expand...

So you refuse to give an answer as to what is confusing you and wish to continue blathering nonsense. Let me know when you want to speak coherently and I'll waste more time educating you.
 
As a clarification, I think government effectiveness can and should be measured. I just don't think, politically, there is ever going to be an effective measure of government effectiveness because we'll never be able to agree on the required definitions to lend such a high-level measurement the necessary influence so as to be meaningful.
 
CycloneWanderer said:
I fail to see why the "life outcomes" of the "least fortunate" is a meaningful measurement of government effectiveness. The primary reason for this failure is the vagueness of the the terms "life outcomes" and "least fortunate." What do you mean when you say "life outcomes?" What is your basis for determining who is "least fortunate" and how will their relative impoverishment be judged? Because of this lack of clarity, meaningful analysis of any potentially causal relationship between government activity and "life outcomes of the least fortunate" is impossible. Most of all, the justification for judging the effectiveness of a government by the least fortunate in society is making a broad assumption that everyone agrees that primary role of government is to improve the quality of life for the least privelidged.

I might accept your measurement of effectiveness if you were looking at the relative health of a society. But I think that your simple definition is not suited to determining a measurement of government effectiveness.
Click to expand...
Of course, the absurd position that we cannot measure quality of life within different poli-sci systems! Statistical analysis has not been invented! Objectiveness is impossible!

It is as if the arguments over the PPACA never happened, that the War on Poverty has not been mulled over, that measurements of income growth per capita are unexplained!

Really....that is your line of argument?
 
Ockham said:
Governments role was initially and should be limited in scope. An effective government is one which lets people live their lives without intrusion into their daily lives, yet fulfills the obligation of protection both domestically and overseas. Having a need to measure government effectiveness simply states to me there's too much government.
Click to expand...

Exactly, and I believe that is what the founders intended. They never wanted to have a huge overbearing big brother type government I'm sure.

Good post. :)
 
Amadeus said:
If government fails, its because people fail. It's amazing how many conservatives say that government sucks and can't solve problems... then elect people whose MISSION it is to prevent government from functioning.
Click to expand...

Bob Blaylock said:
Indeed, it seems to be a defining characteristic of statists and leftists that they put forth policies that anyone with any sense ought to realize will fail, and then try to blame their opposition for the results of this failure. They'll never take responsibility for the consequences of their own policies.
Click to expand...

You can really see the ignorance when a person puts all the blame on ONE side. :lol:
 
"LESS" and "BETTER" are pretty abstract words when it comes to linking them with government.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Of course, the absurd position that we cannot measure quality of life within different poli-sci systems! Statistical analysis has not been invented! Objectiveness is impossible!

It is as if the arguments over the PPACA never happened, that the War on Poverty has not been mulled over, that measurements of income growth per capita are unexplained!

Really....that is your line of argument?
Click to expand...

Let me try another route:

Is the effectiveness of a sports coaching staff judged solely by the "life outcomes" of the fourth string? If no, why not?
 
ChrisL said:
Exactly, and I believe that is what the founders intended. They never wanted to have a huge overbearing big brother type government I'm sure.

Good post. :)
Click to expand...
Yes, yes.....after all, they were fine with slavery.....no overbearing big bro stuff there...nope, not at all.

Ah, if we had just remained a slave holding agrarian Gentry, everything would be just fine! It was best for me! Tee-hee-hee!
 
CycloneWanderer said:
I fail to see why the "life outcomes" of the "least fortunate" is a meaningful measurement of government effectiveness. The primary reason for this failure is the vagueness of the the terms "life outcomes" and "least fortunate." What do you mean when you say "life outcomes?" What is your basis for determining who is "least fortunate" and how will their relative impoverishment be judged? Because of this lack of clarity, meaningful analysis of any potentially causal relationship between government activity and "life outcomes of the least fortunate" is impossible. Most of all, the justification for judging the effectiveness of a government by the least fortunate in society is making a broad assumption that everyone agrees that primary role of government is to improve the quality of life for the least privelidged.

I might accept your measurement of effectiveness if you were looking at the relative health of a society. But I think that your simple definition is not suited to determining a measurement of government effectiveness.
Click to expand...

Well, one thing I can say is that I believe our "least privileged" in America are doing okay. In comparison to every other point in history and pretty much every other country, we take care of our poor pretty darn well. There has always been and will always be a "poor class." That is just how it is, and that is not ALWAYS the fault of government but the individual at times IMO.
 
CycloneWanderer said:
Let me try another route:

Is the effectiveness of a sports coaching staff judged solely by the "life outcomes" of the fourth string? If no, why not?
Click to expand...
Oh gawd......yes, you are right.....the govt of a country....is analogous to a football team.

Thank you for pushing the argument to new heights.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Yes, yes.....after all, they were fine with slavery.....no overbearing big bro stuff there...nope, not at all.

Ah, if we had just remained a slave holding agrarian Gentry, everything would be just fine! It was best for me! Tee-hee-hee!
Click to expand...

Slavery was the norm back in those days. I really don't see your point in bringing slavery into this.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Oh gawd......yes, you are right.....the govt of a country....is analogous to a football team.

Thank you for pushing the argument to new heights.
Click to expand...

He's probably trying to dumb it down for you. WTH, you brought up slavery. Just as dumb. :roll:
 
ChrisL said:
Well, one thing I can say is that I believe our "least privileged" in America are doing okay. In comparison to every other point in history and pretty much every other country, we take care of our poor pretty darn well. There has always been and will always be a "poor class." That is just how it is, and that is not ALWAYS the fault of government but the individual at times IMO.
Click to expand...
LOL....yes yes.....the slaves were fine from the revolution to 1865.

OK!

There were no issues with the poor in urban Gilded Age America either......especially when compared to the Congo.....er....wait.....did I just make a value judgement about the effectiveness of govt policy?

Oh snap!
 
Gimmesometruth said:
LOL....yes yes.....the slaves were fine from the revolution to 1865.

OK!

There were no issues with the poor in urban Gilded Age America either......especially when compared to the Congo.....er....wait.....did I just make a value judgement about the effectiveness of govt policy?

Oh snap!
Click to expand...

Who said they were "fine?" I said it was normal back then, which it was.

Nobody said there weren't issues. We are talking about our current bloated money-eating machine wasteful government. I don't have any idea WHAT you are talking about. Apparently you are going off on some wild tangent because your love for Obama has driven you mad. It's a mad, mad world. ;)
 
ChrisL said:
Slavery was the norm back in those days. I really don't see your point in bringing slavery into this.
Click to expand...
He's probably trying to dumb it down for you. WTH, you brought up slavery. Just as dumb.
Click to expand...

I know, I know.....talking about the conditions of a population as the result of govt policy....and then bringing up a govt policy (slavery) is dumb.......and forgetting that slavery is big bro run amok is...er....not dumb......er.... is it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom