• 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
maquiscat said:
Not necessarily. Smaller or larger does not have a given impact upon the effectiveness of a government. The effectiveness and the size of a government are two separate things. The two hold no mutual exclusion or mutual inclusions.
Click to expand...
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.
 
OnWisconsin said:
A government that is smaller doesn't guarantee that it will be better in any way. It could be worse.
Click to expand...

It would be better and yes that is garunteed.

Government is always first and last an instrument of force which means violence. The less the better. Sometimes it is necessary and justified such as select wars ( but not all wars ).

The more it grows the more force and violence is spread wo others within and outside the borders of the nation being governed.
 
Amadeus said:
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.
Click to expand...

Society never wants anything. Persons do. Society is merely an abstract idea and concept which is therefore very flexible. What that means is society is defined as a word to excuse whatever oppression against select individuals some other individuals wish to use the government sword to achieve. Usually because they lack the nerve to use force themselves.

People solve many problems although some cannot be solved. Usually when left to their own devices people will solve their problem or cooperate with others to find a solution.

Government merely shifts problems from one person to another and solves nothing.
 
Amadeus said:
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.
Click to expand...

Once again society has no problems people do and they are the only ones qualified to even decide what those problems are and how best to solve them.

Socety is again merely a concept as opposed to a real entity
 
TurtleDude said:
Less government can be objectively measured

better cannot be
Click to expand...
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.
 
Amadeus said:
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.
Click to expand...

Moving the goal posts around isn't an argument.
 
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...

Then our government (in fact all governments) fail, because we still have the least fortunate.
 
American said:
Then our government (in fact all governments) fail, because we still have the least fortunate.
Click to expand...
Where did you get the idea that I said govt eliminates the circumstances a person is born into?
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Where did you get the idea that I said govt eliminates the circumstances a person is born into?
Click to expand...

You said it's a measure of govt effectiveness. Since we have at least the same percentage as before our govt grew further, it's not very effective at that.
 
American said:
You said it's a measure of govt effectiveness.
Click to expand...
"It" actually being:

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

Outcomes....different than circumstance born into.



I said Since we have at least the same percentage as before our govt grew further, it's not very effective at that.
Click to expand...
Your inability to read and comprehend the difference between outcome and pre-existing circumstance is the issue....and instead of correcting yourself, re-reading and understanding WHAT I WROTE, you dig in and continue with your folly of misunderstanding.

It has been CLEARLY explained to you, if you choose to continue to follow your failure of understanding, there is no one to blame but yourself.
 
American said:
Leaving a govt too large isn't justification for "what if it's too small?"
Click to expand...

Not sure what you're referring to, exactly. The "too small" remark is in the context of government being inadequate for a particular problem. Shrinking government for the sake of ideology, rather than practicality, ultimately leads to this scenario.
 
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...

weak response. again-less government can be measured. Better government cannot because what socialist income redistributionists call better, many of us call worse
 
Soupnazi630 said:
It would be better and yes that is garunteed.

Government is always first and last an instrument of force which means violence. The less the better. Sometimes it is necessary and justified such as select wars ( but not all wars ).

The more it grows the more force and violence is spread wo others within and outside the borders of the nation being governed.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Less government is better government.
 
Amadeus said:
My post is self-explanatory. If you have a problem with it you're going to have to point it out to me.




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.



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.
Click to expand...
You illustrate my point exactly. Sure a government may be too small to deal with natural disasters or poverty. But that does not mean the government is less efficient if other non-governmental organizations would be better at dealing with such problems. The assumption of yours that I am disputing is that government is efficient at solving most problems. In reality, a smaller government with larger non-government organizations would be a better solution.
 
Amadeus said:
Not sure what you're referring to, exactly. The "too small" remark is in the context of government being inadequate for a particular problem. Shrinking government for the sake of ideology, rather than practicality, ultimately leads to this scenario.
Click to expand...

You haven't got a clue of the truth of that, because it's never happened in the history of the US.
 
Amadeus said:
Which do you feel is more important: A government that is smaller, or a government that can solve important problems more effectively?
Click to expand...

Countries with smaller governments are more prosperous. The bigger the government, the more special interest groups seek favor, and the bigger the corruption . The bigger the government comes with it mountains of red tape and over-bloated bureaucracies which are inefficiently run and overreach in power and often infringe on states rights. Hello Department of Education, hello Department of Energy, hello EPA, hello IRS. The bigger the government the greater individuals/business are regulated. Regulations are hidden taxes which are passed onto the unsuspecting public. Ultimately the biggest problem of all becomes big government for it is what creates the problems in the first place.
 
TeleKat said:
Less government is better government.
Click to expand...

Unless the big government is better and the small government is populated entirely by small-minded, sociopathic people.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
"It" actually being:

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

Outcomes....different than circumstance born into.



Your inability to read and comprehend the difference between outcome and pre-existing circumstance is the issue....and instead of correcting yourself, re-reading and understanding WHAT I WROTE, you dig in and continue with your folly of misunderstanding.

It has been CLEARLY explained to you, if you choose to continue to follow your failure of understanding, there is no one to blame but yourself.
Click to expand...

That's not the purpose of govt.
 
American said:
You haven't got a clue of the truth of that, because it's never happened in the history of the US.
Click to expand...

It's a very easy thought experiment. I don't know why people have trouble with it. A government that is 90% smaller has to allocate its resources accordingly (if military is a primary concern, then those resources go towards military spending). Now keep increasing the percentage.
 
Amadeus said:
It's a very easy thought experiment. I don't know why people have trouble with it. A government that is 90% smaller has to allocate its resources accordingly (if military is a primary concern, then those resources go towards military spending). Now keep increasing the percentage.
Click to expand...

Why are you having trouble with it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom