First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Small Government
65911 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
54 / F / Atlanta GA
Offline
Posted 6/28/10
To filling a pothole, you need several trucks two or three supervisors and six workers watch one person. Fill in the hole. In many case I have seen such poor work done by city works and engineers after the fourth time they call in the professionals. A company with good engineers and workers do the job once and that all. Government worker is they such a thing.
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 6/28/10

Cuddlebuns wrote:

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.


I mean, like the number of regulations and bureaucracies and stuff. When I say 'big' I mean, a government with lots of regulations and bureaucracys & the consequnt high taxes to support it.

like for example, how the bureaucracy has prevented the cleanup of the oil spill. and hows its prevented the help of 13 other countries in the cleanup of the oil spill. The bureaucracy has prevented the use of booms, skimmers, burning it, chemical dispersment of it, ect So consequently some has been done, but not all that could have been done has been done and its already been 70 days. And all the propitsions that have been proposed have been shot down by the government lol. the boom and skimmers are still sitting in the wearhouse. So all these ideas that have been proposed have been shot down by the bureacurcy, thats the kinda stuff im talking about when i say 'big'. When the burearcary gets in the way of efficiency and getting the job at hand done.
1394 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 6/28/10

jandarujora wrote:

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.


We are a 'democratic-republic' in that a group of people are represented based upon geography and population (republic) by a representative elected by the populace of said geographic area(democratic). While the founders did want to limit our government's power, (check and balance) they also wanted to actually get something done, unlike the previous debacle that was the Article of Confederation, something we now know as the 'small federal government'.
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 6/28/10 , edited 6/28/10

orangeflute wrote:


jandarujora wrote:

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.


We are a 'democratic-republic' in that a group of people are represented based upon geography and population (republic) by a representative elected by the populace of said geographic area(democratic). While the founders did want to limit our government's power, (check and balance) they also wanted to actually get something done, unlike the previous debacle that was the Article of Confederation, something we now know as the 'small federal government'.


Exactly so whats wrong with a democratic limited power government ? It helps prevent tranny and the government from stepping all over the peoples rights and taking all their money and those other kinds of things that happen when you give too much power to the government. It goes to the governments head and it will abuse it.
Posted 6/28/10

Allhailodin wrote:


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.
Stupid, when you don't even know the reason why you have so many subdivisions. It's because you have as many real social conflicts as there are as many actual subordinate groups. Therefore if you want a democratic government with the simplest structure possible, you'll need to make all people think the same; one culture, one thought. But then how can you call that freedom? When what you're really asking is totalitarianism.
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 6/28/10 , edited 6/28/10

DomFortress wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:


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.
Stupid, when you don't even know the reason why you have so many subdivisions. It's because you have as many real social conflicts as there are as many actual subordinate groups. Therefore if you want a democratic government with the simplest structure possible, you'll need to make all people think the same; one culture, one thought. But then how can you call that freedom? When what you're really asking is totalitarianism.


Government takes away your freedom and rights with regulations and laws, the larger the government, the more regulations and laws, and thus the less freedom and rights you have.

If you give a lot of power to the government (large one) it will abuse the citizens rights and freedoms by regulating them to death. See it all the time all over the world. In lots of these supposedly democratic governments I see nothing but their government taking away their rights and freedoms.

Its simple logic

The bigger the government, the more laws and regulations and thus the less freedoms and rights you have.

It's really simple

In order to protect the citizens rights and freedoms you need limit the government's ability to regulate and pass laws that restrict and restrain, thus protecting the rights and freedoms of the people who live in that country.

Every law passed and every single regulation is one less freedom you have.

If the power of the government isn't limited things like tranny can easily take place. If the power of the government isn't limited you can wind up with things like china forming and there's nothing the people can do about it or to stop it.
Posted 6/28/10

Allhailodin wrote:



Government takes away your freedom and rights with regulations and laws, the larger the government, the more regulations and laws, and thus the less freedom and rights you have.
Stupid, when your legislation and your constitutions grant and protect your basic rights and freedom. Even your own government had to answer to the same laws that you had to answer to.

Therefore the only reason that you have this many rules, laws, and regulations, it's because your society had become too complex due to so many unnecessary choices created by big corporations.

Now take your time and reflect upon those links that I've just provided. Otherwise you'll only thinking in circle due to your own ignorance.
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 6/28/10 , edited 6/28/10

Allhailodin wrote:

I mean, like the number of regulations and bureaucracies and stuff. When I say 'big' I mean, a government with lots of regulations and bureaucracys & the consequnt high taxes to support it.


So you're saying that we should get rid of all regulations and taxes? Or just some of them? Which ones?


like for example, how the bureaucracy has prevented the cleanup of the oil spill. and hows its prevented the help of 13 other countries in the cleanup of the oil spill. The bureaucracy has prevented the use of booms, skimmers, burning it, chemical dispersment of it, ect So consequently some has been done, but not all that could have been done has been done and its already been 70 days. And all the propitsions that have been proposed have been shot down by the government lol. the boom and skimmers are still sitting in the wearhouse. So all these ideas that have been proposed have been shot down by the bureacurcy, thats the kinda stuff im talking about when i say 'big'. When the burearcary gets in the way of efficiency and getting the job at hand done.


That is an example of when government intervention is a bad thing, and I don't think anyone would disagree with that. Only the most insane extremists would be so pro-government that they would support their decision to slow down the process of solving an environmental disaster like this, or any other huge problem, and I've personally never heard of anyone that insane.

Although I'm curious as to why they are interfering with the cleanup like that, I'm guessing because they make money off of it somehow, but I can't imagine how. I thought I heard/read somewhere that Obama has accepted aid from Mexico and other countries, but I'm not sure.



Every law passed and every single regulation is one less freedom you have.


Child labor laws are a government regulation that make it illegal for people underage 18 to work a certain amount of hours, and this law has given children the freedom to pursue an education rather than being forced to work all the time to help support their family.

Minimum wage is a government regulation that requires businesses to pay their workers a (supposedly) livable wage, which ensures that workers are paid fairly and aren't forced to work 16 hours a day just to earn barely enough money to pay basic living expenses.

Workplace safety laws are a government regulation that require workplaces to have a certain level of safety precautions to prevent injury and/or death to their workers.

Anti-trust laws are a government regulation that prevent businesses from engaging in unethical behaviors, like creating monopolies, in order to ensure that competition among businesses remains fair, and so that people can start their own businesses without worrying about being instantly crushed by their larger counterparts.

All of these and many more are regulations that were placed on businesses soon after the American Industrial Revolution, which is a time when businesses had virtually no regulations, which allowed them to turn the majority of the country into wage slaves and strip them of many of their freedoms. It is obvious that these laws and regulations actually protect our freedoms and created many opportunities that were not around before they were passed.

This is why it's not wise to judge governments based solely on idealogical perceptions. When you believe that every law and every tax is inherently bad or good just because it is a law or a tax, it limits one's ability to identify and understand issues, which hinders progress.

10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 6/28/10

DomFortress wrote:

Stupid, when your legislation and your constitutions grant and protect your basic rights and freedom. Even your own government had to answer to the same laws that you had to answer to.

Therefore the only reason that you have this many rules, laws, and regulations, it's because your society had become too complex due to so many unnecessary choices created by big corporations.

Now take your time and reflect upon those links that I've just provided. Otherwise you'll only thinking in circle due to your own ignorance.


Our constitution just grants us a bare minimum of rights, but those aren't the rights and freedoms I'm talking about. Those are protected, but all our other ones aren't.

Its all the other ones that aren't protected by the constitution that I'm talking about.

I'll give you 3 examples -

The freedom / right of choice to eat what we want(cities that banned trans fats, people who want to outlaw McDonalds, Burger King, Carls JR, ect). This right is under assault.

The freedom / right to own guns (some cities (like Chicago) have tried to ban guns before(see Otis McDonald vs City of Chicago)), tho the supreme court over ruled it. This basic freedom / right is also constantly under assault.

Parents rights are constantly being underminded (Like how its legal for a pregnant 14 year old girl to get an abortion and not even need to tell the parents) or how some schools are planning on giving condoms to kids, and the parents have utterly no say. The government is responisable for the break down of the family unit.
65911 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
54 / F / Atlanta GA
Offline
Posted 6/28/10
Just a thought if BP was, hit with so many fines to comply with federal regulator why was the derrick still operating?
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 6/28/10

Cuddlebuns wrote:

So you're saying that we should get rid of all regulations and taxes? Or just some of them? Which ones?


No not all of them. Just the ones(bureaucracy / regulations) that causes inefficiencies (like the ones responsable for the oil response disaster). and cause money to be wasted, a government should be efficient, our bureaucracies are nothing close to efficient. And there are so many of them, a lot of them are in direct confliction with each other, which just causes even more inefficiencies. And when something needs to happen, it doesn't happen (because of the direct conflicts).



That is an example of when government intervention is a bad thing, and I don't think anyone would disagree with that. Only the most insane extremists would be so pro-government that they would support their decision to slow down the process of solving an environmental disaster like this, or any other huge problem, and I've personally never heard of anyone that insane.

Although I'm curious as to why they are interfering with the cleanup like that, I'm guessing because they make money off of it somehow, but I can't imagine how. I thought I heard/read somewhere that Obama has accepted aid from Mexico and other countries, but I'm not sure.


its costing them more than they could possibly be making, both politically and montary, its just that all the inefficiencies cause by the bureaucracies that are in direct conflition with each other prevent anything from happening. Like they still haven't lifted the jones act. So they can't accept foreign aid.



Child labor laws are a government regulation that make it illegal for people underage 18 to work a certain amount of hours, and this law has given children the freedom to pursue an education rather than being forced to work all the time to help support their family.

Minimum wage is a government regulation that requires businesses to pay their workers a (supposedly) livable wage, which ensures that workers are paid fairly and aren't forced to work 16 hours a day just to earn barely enough money to pay basic living expenses.

Workplace safety laws are a government regulation that require workplaces to have a certain level of safety precautions to prevent injury and/or death to their workers.

Anti-trust laws are a government regulation that prevent businesses from engaging in unethical behaviors, like creating monopolies, in order to ensure that competition among businesses remains fair, and so that people can start their own businesses without worrying about being instantly crushed by their larger counterparts.

All of these and many more are regulations that were placed on businesses soon after the American Industrial Revolution, which is a time when businesses had virtually no regulations, which allowed them to turn the majority of the country into wage slaves and strip them of many of their freedoms. It is obvious that these laws and regulations actually protect our freedoms and created many opportunities that were not around before they were passed.

This is why it's not wise to judge governments based solely on idealogical perceptions. When you believe that every law and every tax is inherently bad or good just because it is a law or a tax, it limits one's ability to identify and understand issues, which hinders progress.



Yea, but that stuff is just common sense, I was referring more to things like banning of trans fats and gun control laws, stuff that strips you(the average person) of freedom of choice, or regulations and bureaucracy that make it take up to 6 months to get a license to start a businesses as compared to a few hours (like in texas).

But I wasn't specific enough. Sorry
1288 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
A small place in...
Offline
Posted 6/28/10 , edited 6/28/10
I regret i will not be putting spoilers or cutting down any quotes for I think the past few posts have been insightful and there been some common ground found.


Allhailodin wrote:


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.


Excellent post by Maffoo, and interestingly enough I am in agreement about this although I think somehow you missed the point that I am making, Perhaps Its best if I direct to another brilliant post from Cuddlebuns.


Cuddlebuns wrote:

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.


Its also good to see the discussion thats been going on so far between you and cuddlebuns.
75430 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
49 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 6/29/10
Well then. Let's go all the way then. let's really shrink government.

so. When is Pinkerton's taking over policing in your town?

how about that Black Water, guess it's going to be doing a lot of hiring now that we're demobilixing the entire military.

But that's okay because the private sector is SO much more efficient and responsible than government.
1394 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 6/29/10 , edited 6/29/10

Allhailodin wrote:


orangeflute wrote:


jandarujora wrote:

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.


We are a 'democratic-republic' in that a group of people are represented based upon geography and population (republic) by a representative elected by the populace of said geographic area(democratic). While the founders did want to limit our government's power, (check and balance) they also wanted to actually get something done, unlike the previous debacle that was the Article of Confederation, something we now know as the
2319 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / where the grass i...
Offline
Posted 6/30/10

Allhailodin wrote:


alupihan45 wrote:

is there such thing as small government?


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


so it's not national vs local government?
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.