First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Small Government
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 6/27/10 , edited 6/28/10
What's peoples objection to small government ? A small government is an efficient one and it doesn't confiscate all your hard earned money through taxation, and it doesn't grab you by the throat and force feed you regulations, restrictions and restraints like a big one does. So whats peoples problems with it ? I don't get it. Do people actually like being highly regulated and taxed ?

And When I say large government, I'm referring to one with lots and lots of departments, divisions, bureaucracies, sub department sub divisions and what not.
1288 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
A small place in...
Offline
Posted 6/27/10
How small are we talking about here?

Big enough to enforce its borders (Arizona), big enough to support Israel, middle east and overseas allies, Japan, military bases? Big enough to invade countries, invade Iraq and Afghanistan? Big enough to protect its own self (9-11)? Big enough to tie its own shoelace. Pretty general statement. Then what about big corporations or big banks?


2319 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / where the grass i...
Offline
Posted 6/27/10
is there such thing as small government?
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 6/27/10

alupihan45 wrote:

is there such thing as small government?


America had one for 200 years. Its the founding value of the country.
Posted 6/27/10
You hoping politicians to form small government is like you wanting democracy to disappear. Without you realizing that governing is at the core of civility within any society.

And if you don't believe me, why don't you go ahead and start promoting "no voting" as an activist. Then you'll have your wish for the smallest government possible; individualist anarchism. And see for yourself if humanity can get anything done at all, without any social structure whatsoever.
65911 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
54 / F / Atlanta GA
Offline
Posted 6/28/10
Well let’s see I have city county and state, of cores federal government as well For types of taxes Then the city and county get property tax plus a sell taxes the state income tax and sells tax then the big one federal tax FICAI and so forth. Hell when I die depending on what left 55% death tax. They gone excessively far and plus we have thirteen trillion dollar debit and you can blame the house and Semite for that. Look at the Fair Tax you might clue in what will bring jobs into the country. The tax system impeded growth moves job over sea. If you call them, American jobs there not their employers’ jobs. ---- Just putting my two cents in .
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 6/28/10

DomFortress wrote:

You hoping politicians to form small government is like you wanting democracy to disappear. Without you realizing that governing is at the core of civility within any society.

And if you don't believe me, why don't you go ahead and start promoting "no voting" as an activist. Then you'll have your wish for the smallest government possible; individualist anarchism. And see for yourself if humanity can get anything done at all, without any social structure whatsoever.


I dunno why you people seem to think you need a large government for a democracy, you don't large government actually gets in the way of democracy lol. Democracy and small government can exist just find side by side. Big government = evil, Democracy = good. Government is not the solution to anything, in fact its at the core of a lot of this countries problems.
Posted 6/28/10
Last time I checked America was a constitutional republic with plutarchial characteristics, not a democracy. And a primary objective of the constitution was to limit the powers of government, so it kind of boggles my mind exactly where the government has been drawing its limits nowadays.
1288 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
A small place in...
Offline
Posted 6/28/10 , edited 6/28/10

Allhailodin wrote:


alupihan45 wrote:

is there such thing as small government?


America had one for 200 years. Its the founding value of the country.


1776-1976 - America small government ?
I am curious to know more about this statement. Care to elaborate more on it


How small are we talking about here?
A question which I am curious on what your answers are?

Big enough to enforce its borders (Arizona), big enough to support Israel, middle east and overseas allies, Japan, military bases? Big enough to invade countries, invade Iraq and Afghanistan? Big enough to protect its own self (9-11)? Big enough to tie its own shoelace. Pretty general statement. Then what about big corporations or big banks?

PS: You know when when we should be afraid ... When government and corporations work together in their own interests at the expense of the ordinary citizens...
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 6/28/10 , edited 6/28/10
When one applies arbitrary terms like "big" and "small" to subjects like this, it doesn't really give the discussion any sort of direction. I could argue that the U.S does have a small government because it's not as controlling or imposing as China's. In fact, it's arguable that we have the most unregulated government and economy in the industrialized world. One could argue that any government at all is too much government.

It's not about whether the government is "big" or "small," but exactly what their authority is and how they are using it. Only the misinformed judge a government based on abstract details like it's "size," while informed citizens judge it based on it's actions. A better way to start the discussion would be to outline specifically what actions and powers of the government you disagree with, and how removing them would benefit us overall.


Northboundsnow wrote:

PS: You know when when we should be afraid ... When government and corporations work together in their own interests at the expense of the ordinary citizens...


It's time to start building bomb shelters then, because they've been doing that for a while now.
Posted 6/28/10

Northboundsnow wrote:

PS: You know when when we should be afraid ... When government and corporations work together in their own interests at the expense of the ordinary citizens...


Well, this has been going on in America ever since that spineless president Woodrow Wilson sold the country off to the bankers. It's been a steady downhill slide ever since.

Posted 6/28/10

Allhailodin wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

You hoping politicians to form small government is like you wanting democracy to disappear. Without you realizing that governing is at the core of civility within any society.

And if you don't believe me, why don't you go ahead and start promoting "no voting" as an activist. Then you'll have your wish for the smallest government possible; individualist anarchism. And see for yourself if humanity can get anything done at all, without any social structure whatsoever.


I dunno why you people seem to think you need a large government for a democracy, you don't large government actually gets in the way of democracy lol. Democracy and small government can exist just find side by side. Big government = evil, Democracy = good. Government is not the solution to anything, in fact its at the core of a lot of this countries problems.
Do you even know just what exactly "democracy" means? When respectively "demo" means people and "cracy" means govern in Greek. That means in a true democratic nation, every citizens has a saying in their government policy with their individual votes. So relatively speaking your "republic democratic" system is by far the smallest of the two system; the citizens can only choose the lesser of the two representatives as their policy makers, whereas the real influence are still with the most powerful.
maffoo 
79814 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / England
Offline
Posted 6/28/10
I'm all for small governments. Big governments are wasteful and create complex bureaucratic systems which forget that "government money" is actually "taxpayers' money." They create layers of management that actually hinder the workings of the state, and you find a lot of those managers building their own little empires.

My view is that a government should intervene as little as possible in the lives of its citizens, essentially covering the jobs where it would be impractical for the private sector to do them, for example a universal healthcare system arguably needs to be administered by the State, and it is preferable for the police and defence forces to be paid by the State rather than private companies. It should also provide a "safety net" for people who fall on hard times, but not as a way of life the UK benefit system has become for too many people.

Smaller governments are also forced to budget more carefully, and waste less money on pointless projects (does anyone remember the Millenium Dome?)
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 6/28/10

DomFortress wrote:

Do you even know just what exactly "democracy" means? When respectively "demo" means people and "cracy" means govern in Greek. That means in a true democratic nation, every citizens has a saying in their government policy with their individual votes. So relatively speaking your "republic democratic" system is by far the smallest of the two system; the citizens can only choose the lesser of the two representatives as their policy makers, whereas the real influence are still with the most powerful.


Yes I know what a democracy is. But in order for the citizen to have a say, he / she has to register to vote, which is completely optional.

When I say large government, I'm referring to one with lots and lots of departments, divisions, bureaucracies, sub department sub divisions and what not. That stuff has nothing to do with democracy as its not run democratically, its usually run one a single person. A manager type person, the head of the dept or division. Who makes all the executive type decisions and can fire anyone without anyone else's approval, that's not democracy.

So if you only have a little of that, you have a small government. Which is good.

The more of them you have, the less efficient the government runs,(they tend to interfear & conflict with each other) and the more clogged the system becomes. Costs more to run too.

You don't need all that extra stuff in a democracy. Theres nothing wrong with giving the citizens a say in what the government does, imo thats a good thing, but when there is too much government that gets put in jepodary. As it tries to cut down the number of things the citizens has the right to vote for, leik on whether or not the government can take over the utility industry, in a big government, the citizens wouldn't even have the right to vote on that.
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 6/28/10

Northboundsnow wrote:

1776-1976 - America small government ?
I am curious to know more about this statement. Care to elaborate more on it


maffoo said it best


I'm all for small governments. Big governments are wasteful and create complex bureaucratic systems which forget that "government money" is actually "taxpayers' money." They create layers of management that actually hinder the workings of the state, and you find a lot of those managers building their own little empires.

My view is that a government should intervene as little as possible in the lives of its citizens, essentially covering the jobs where it would be impractical for the private sector to do them, for example a universal healthcare system arguably needs to be administered by the State, and it is preferable for the police and defence forces to be paid by the State rather than private companies. It should also provide a "safety net" for people who fall on hard times, but not as a way of life the UK benefit system has become for too many people.

Smaller governments are also forced to budget more carefully, and waste less money on pointless projects (does anyone remember the Millenium Dome?)


The forefathers founded the country with the intent that the government generally for the most part stay out of the citizens lives and only intervein when necessary, they new from their expericene with england that a large government would break its own laws and screw the citizens over, so they wanted a smaller one. where this isn't such an issue. They also new that the government needed to be divides so that power was split up.

All these bureaucracies are fairly recent things, and in the last 100 years, the amount of them has pretty much squared itself.



How small are we talking about here?
A question which I am curious on what your answers are?

Big enough to enforce its borders (Arizona), big enough to support Israel, middle east and overseas allies, Japan, military bases? Big enough to invade countries, invade Iraq and Afghanistan? Big enough to protect its own self (9-11)? Big enough to tie its own shoelace. Pretty general statement. Then what about big corporations or big banks?


Enforcing the borders isn't the states responsibilty its the feds, and they've failed beautifully at it, so the state (arizona) finally has had enough of the drug voilence and kidnappins and stuff, and did something about it on its own.

A military is important, you pretty much need one to exist in todays world.

I dunno about big corporations or banks, i don't think any of them are on the scale of the federal government.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.