Less Government vs. Better Government

[Amadeus]

Which do you feel is more important: A government that is smaller, or a government that can solve important problems more effectively?

 

[DA60]

Less government.

'Better' and 'government' are contradictions in terms.

 

[OnWisconsin]

Which do you feel is more important: A government that is smaller, or a government that can solve important problems more effectively?

A government that is smaller doesn't guarantee that it will be better in any way. It could be worse.

 

[CalGun]

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.

My wife works for the VA. She has a co worker (mental health pro) who's having issues of her own, and for the past 6 months they've paid her full time and not let her see a single veteran patient. WTF; put her on disability already and move on. These are common occurrences in government which causes people to want "less" government.

 

[Thom Paine]

Which do you feel is more important: A government that is smaller, or a government that can solve important problems more effectively?

Less Gov't is better Gov't.

enjoy life

Thom Paine

 

[maquiscat]

Which do you feel is more important: A government that is smaller, or a government that can solve important problems more effectively?

You have a false underwritten premise that the two are mutually exclusive.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Which do you feel is more important: A government that is smaller, or a government that can solve important problems more effectively?

This is like asking - better cancer or less cancer? Neither is a cure-all, considering the way government has morphed and the types of people who run for and get elected to public office.

If you could eradicate about 90% of what government currently does at the moment, and revert back to basic principles and basic reasons for citizens to collectively negotiate and fund certain enterprises, you might get somewhere. Virtually impossible at this point - there are two many special interests and two many politicians without the integrity to resist them.

 

[Amadeus]

You have a false underwritten premise that the two are mutually exclusive.

Not at all, it's a matter of where your ideological priorities are.

 

[Amadeus]

This is like asking - better cancer or less cancer?

If you believe that government is analogous to cancer, then obviously you'd choose less government, rather than better government.

 

[Lakryte]

Which do you feel is more important: A government that is smaller, or a government that can solve important problems more effectively?

I would say the two go hand in hand. A large government with many laws and departments and agencies results in many more bureaucrats and hoops to jump through. A smaller government is more streamlined and more likely to be efficient, specializing in its limited roles more effectively than spreading itself everywhere.

 

[Amadeus]

I would say the two go hand in hand. A large government with many laws and departments and agencies results in many more bureaucrats and hoops to jump through. A smaller government is more streamlined and more likely to be efficient, specializing in its limited roles more effectively than spreading itself everywhere.

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.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Which do you feel is more important: A government that is smaller, or a government that can solve important problems more effectively?

You're question assumes that 1: a bigger government is more effective and 2: that a smaller government cannot be effective. In reality though a small government can be just as effective as a larger government at solving important problems. Your question is also subjective. "Important problems" can be purely subjective as what is important to you may not be important to someone else.

 

[Amadeus]

You're question assumes that 1: a bigger government is more effective and 2: that a smaller government cannot be effective. In reality though a small government can be just as effective as a larger government at solving important problems. Your question is also subjective. "Important problems" can be purely subjective as what is important to you may not be important to someone else.

Again, there is no assumption in the question, and larger government isn't specified.

 

[US Conservative]

Less govt IS better govt.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Again, there is no assumption in the question, and larger government isn't specified.

Yes, there is, and while "larger government" isn't specified it is implied by stating "A government that is smaller, or...". It is that "or" when combined with "smaller" that makes the implication. Whether you meant it or not, that is the effect of your post. It is further reinforced in your subsequent posts when you state things like "What if a government is too small" such as in your post# 11.

 

[Amadeus]

Yes, there is, and while "larger government" isn't specified it is implied by stating "A government that is smaller, or...". It is that "or" when combined with "smaller" that makes the implication. Whether you meant it or not, that is the effect of your post. It is further reinforced in your subsequent posts when you state things like "What if a government is too small" such as in your post# 11.

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.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Which do you feel is more important: A government that is smaller, or a government that can solve important problems more effectively?

False dichotomy.

It's not a choice between smaller government or better government.

Smaller government is better government.

“A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government…” — Thomas Jefferson​

 

[Bob Blaylock]

A government that is smaller doesn't guarantee that it will be better in any way. It could be worse.

Perhaps, but a government being bigger does unalterably guarantee that it will be worse.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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.

At this point, we are not anywhere close to being in any danger of seeing a government that is too small.

But the primary error in your query here is the presumption that government is the best way to solve most problems. It most certainly is not, as is easily proven by looking at the vast majority of instances where we call upon government to solve problems. Most times, the result is the same: Government ends up creating more problems, worse than what it was supposed to solve, while doing very little to mitigate the original problem.

 

[a351]

For the government to ignore needs and issues that they have the tools to address in the name of small government alone isn't necessarily better for the country's well being and populace. Efficiency and practicality should be the goal of modern governments, not blind principle and bumper sticker sloganeering.

 

[Amadeus]

Smaller government is better government.

If smaller government is better, then no government must be best. That is the logical conclusion of your argument.

 

[US Conservative]

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.

Its you who is mistaken. Your bias is so complete-that you dont even recognize a neutral question.

 

[US Conservative]

If smaller government is better, then no government must be best. That is the logical conclusion of your argument.

Actually thats the tragic conclusion of your flawed logic. Im a conservative who believes a certain minimal amount of govt is appropriate. Im not an anarchist, and you need to do some reading-because you are simply spouting your pre-programmed "thoughts" right now, and nobody is buying it.

 

[Amadeus]

But the primary error in your query here is the presumption that government is the best way to solve most problems.

No, my presumption is that cooperation and collective problem solving are required for certain problems. How do you solve a national problem without government?

 

[Henrin]

No, my presumption is that cooperation and collective problem solving are required for certain problems. How do you solve a national problem without government?

People.