• 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
Taking money from one person to give to another for their sustenance is not the purpose of government.
Only your opinion and most debatable.
I have read the term...promoting the general welfare.....are we speaking of the people or the nation....or simply the wealthy ?
 
I have read the term...promoting the general welfare.....are we speaking of the people or the nation....or simply the wealthy ?

I'd say the People and the nation are basically the same thing in this context, and the wealthy are a part of the People. A lot of things are done to promote their welfare, but many on the Right don't seem to realize that.
 
Only your opinion and most debatable.
I have read the term...promoting the general welfare.....are we speaking of the people or the nation....or simply the wealthy ?

Why don't you read what the authors said about it?
 
It's up to each citizen to maximize their life, not the govt.
NO
What it takes is a cooperative effort from business, church, the people, and government - working together, to improve things for ALL or us !
Who runs this show ?
the people
Who is the conductor ?
the government
Who has the good ideas ?
business
And, YES, even church plays a role .. .. when they remember the words from Jesus.
And, IMO, if all was "perfect", we would NOT need government...only "church" .
 
Why don't you read what the authors said about it?
If the "general welfare" of a nation's people is NOT in black and white ..it should be ..
Remember, these things are written by "man", who is NOT perfect !
Thus , frankly, I am NOT impressed by what the "authors" have written.
And, American, I would suggest that, YOU, do some reading.
 
Which do you feel is more important: A government that is smaller, or a government that can solve important problems more effectively?

I voted better government, though I do believe a decentralized system is better fitting for a democracy (your vote goes further in a city of 1,000,0000 than it does in a country of 350,000,000). And by decentralized I don't mean "less" but more local.
 
If the "general welfare" of a nation's people is NOT in black and white ..it should be ..
Remember, these things are written by "man", who is NOT perfect !
Thus , frankly, I am NOT impressed by what the "authors" have written.
And, American, I would suggest that, YOU, do some reading.

You being impressed by the authors is irrelevent. Their intended meaning of the writings is all that matters, and your ability to follow what was ratified is all that's required. Try not to overthink it.
 
NO
What it takes is a cooperative effort from business, church, the people, and government - working together, to improve things for ALL or us !
Who runs this show ?
the people
Who is the conductor ?
the government

Who has the good ideas ?
business
And, YES, even church plays a role .. .. when they remember the words from Jesus.
And, IMO, if all was "perfect", we would NOT need government...only "church" .

You gave two options, I believe in the first one (i.e., the people). You second option is wrong in my view. The government is an arbitrator.
 
Do we then take that to its logical conclusion and claim no government is best?

No, you have to have government. You have to have taxes to build bridges, roads and infrastructure. But all that is where it pretty much ends.
Taxpayer money should go to the benefit of the taxpayers.
 
No, you have to have government. You have to have taxes to build bridges, roads and infrastructure. But all that is where it pretty much ends.
Taxpayer money should go to the benefit of the taxpayers.

Well, I do agree for the most part (though our opinion on where to draw tax revenue would probably differ). But I think if you really want to see limited government, then a decentralized system is the way to go. Each municipality could decide how much government they want. And if you don't like that particular form of government... well its easier to move to another city/state than it is to move out of country.
 
You being impressed by the authors is irrelevent. Their intended meaning of the writings is all that matters, and your ability to follow what was ratified is all that's required. Try not to overthink it.
American, your "say-so" changes nothing...Words written centuries ago by the then 1% do not impress me...
The intended meaning .. .. .. is open to debate ... I , for one, follow what I think is right, Not by what some self-righteous conservative thinks..
 
Less is better.

Brilliant
But, in the sense, that I believe that a man must always try to "do more" (improve efficiency) , I agree.
But, with government, we are dealing with people, more so than things...And "efficiency" , when working with people , takes a back seat ... or it should.
So, as far I am concerned, its better over less..
 
No, you have to have government. You have to have taxes to build bridges, roads and infrastructure. But all that is where it pretty much ends.
Taxpayer money should go to the benefit of the taxpayers.

Taxpayer money must go for the good of the entire nation, NOT just the taxpayers...This means all of us ....including those who, do pay little to no tax.
 
Taxpayer money must go for the good of the entire nation, NOT just the taxpayers...This means all of us ....including those who, do pay little to no tax.

Non payers, unless truly incapable of working. Can just die off.
 
American, your "say-so" changes nothing...Words written centuries ago by the then 1% do not impress me...
The intended meaning .. .. .. is open to debate ... I , for one, follow what I think is right, Not by what some self-righteous conservative thinks..

That's all we need to know about YOU.
 
Non payers, unless truly incapable of working. Can just die off.

Or they can go to the prisons and the workhouses as was the practice during the times of Charles Dickens....or before then .. the 600s ..the stone age ??
 
Unless the big government is better and the small government is populated entirely by small-minded, sociopathic people.

Well that's true, but if small-minded sociopathic people occupied my preferred size of government, they wouldn't have enough power to do anything stupid on a large scale anyway. That's kind of the point.
 
I require both.

Less AND better.

Especially since less IS better, to a degree, and particularly given the current size of government in most areas of the world.

Some few could do with more, of course.
 
You being impressed by the authors is irrelevent. Their intended meaning of the writings is all that matters, and your ability to follow what was ratified is all that's required. Try not to overthink it.
NO , and who are you to say this ? We are speaking of men from hundreds of years ago, at their time, they may have been great, but now, only human. And their "intended meanings" , not above debate either, but as they are not around.....
 
Back
Top Bottom