Big or small government? (wage, abortion, party, elect)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's misleading BS. Why is the U.S. still so strong devided into a right wing and left wing view? The U.S. stills fight battles that are already fought out in most other developed countries. There are more than enough good examples that countries with "big governments" and countries with "lean governments" can prosper. It also has nothing to do with the ratio of public spending to GDP.
The government should ensure that the whole system is as efficient as possible, taking into account the well beeing of the general public. But for achieve this in many cases regulations must be made by the government.
For example it doesn't make sense to liberalize the store hours, when only a minority of the population are in favor for completely liberalized store hours. And 24/7 store hours lead to higher prices.
It's absurd to think that fewer regulations will always lead to a better outcome. The government has always to balance the pros and cons of their decisions and non decisions.
One of the better posts in this thread.
Unfortunately, Americans have not only gotten more liberal or more conservative (as opposed to more in the middle), but they've also tended to get more "either/or". The understanding that many things are along a continuum, rather than one extreme or another seems to have escaped most people.
I'm generally on the liberal side of things, but not on everything. I've actually had people say, "But you're a liberal. You can't believe in capital punishment." To jello I can't.
Unfortunately, Americans have not only gotten more liberal or more conservative (as opposed to more in the middle), but they've also tended to get more "either/or". The understanding that many things are along a continuum, rather than one extreme or another seems to have escaped most people.
I'm generally on the liberal side of things, but not on everything. I've actually had people say, "But you're a liberal. You can't believe in capital punishment." To jello I can't.
Yep. Great post and pretty sure I cannot rep you. We see far too many true Scottsman statements in regards to politics. I am mostly moderate with some liberal leanins and conservative but with realistic perspective such as cutting school funding don't help the problems with school, nor does school choice without vouchers as not everyone can get into private schools on scholarships based on education. Just look at the conservatives that want a conservative that is both fiscal and socially conservative like say Ted Cruz.
There are more than enough good examples that countries with "big governments" and countries with "lean governments" can prosper. It also has nothing to do with the ratio of public spending to GDP.
Before reading your comment, I stumbled upon an interesting analysis on this very issue that compares public workers as a percentage of GDP that found no statistical correlation between size of government in terms of public employees and economic prosperity. To starkly illustrate the point the analysis found that Singapore with the lowest percentage of public workers was second in GDP behind Norway which has one of the highest rates of public employment. The analysis also found that despite arguments to the contrary the U.S. is smack dab in the middle with the public work force at 16.2, in range that extends from 6.35 in Singapore to 33.87 in Sweden. All of which proves that the size of government isn't the issue, it is what government does with what it deems that it needs to have.
I have nothing to contribute except to say that this thread is probably one of the most civil discourses that I have ever read between the left and the right. I actually was able to put myself in both the left and right mind frame and see things from both points of view. I am finding the ideas very interesting and agree that perhaps the size of the government isn't the issue.
I have nothing to contribute except to say that this thread is probably one of the most civil discourses that I have ever read between the left and the right.
When I was in school and later when I was in the business of politics, I always found my most challenging and rewarding arguments where with conservatives and if given the increasingly rare opportunity I try to replicate the same experience.
Anyway, when it comes to American government it is my experience aside from institutional inertia which is deadly enough to new initiatives, federal workers don't take their orders, salute and only ask how high. Too often federal workers protected by civil service rules work to thwart the best intentions of elected officials regardless of party. So, too often we have a government working against itself and at cross purposes. And that is before pointing out that corruption isn't the sole province of elected officials. This is why I am exceedingly skeptical of any politician who pledges to change how Washington operates.
Last edited by TheWiseWino; 02-09-2016 at 07:18 PM..
With all due humor, there are only two real "wings" in America:
The "free" wing, under the republican form of government, and the
"subject" wing, under the indirect democratic form of government.
The so-called "left" versus "right" wing are but opposite wings of the same vulture feeding on the carcass of America.
Under the republican form, Americans have endowed rights and liberties.
Under the democratic form, subject citizens have mandatory civic duties, that effectively waive endowed rights.
This has been going on since the nation's founding.
. . .
“ It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency.â€
- - - George Washington; "Sentiments on a Peace Establishment" in a letter to Alexander Hamilton (2 May 1783); published in The Writings of George Washington (1938), edited by John C. Fitzpatrick, Vol. 26, p. 289.
[... Every citizen ... owes a portion of his property ... and services in defense ... in the militia ... from 18 to 50 years of age... ]
Make no mistake!
• The Declaration says : YOU have an endowed right to life.
• But citizens have no inalienable (endowed) right to life.
• The Declaration says : YOU have an endowed right to natural and personal liberty.
• But citizens have only civil and political liberty.
• The Declaration says : YOU have an endowed right to absolutely own private property (upon which you can pursue happiness without permission of a superior).
• But citizens have no private property, absolutely owned... a portion can be claimed by the government.
If you've consented to be a citizen, you have NO ENDOWED RIGHTS.
Zip. Nada. Bumpkiss. Empty Set. Nought.
Any presumption to the contrary is an error not supported by law nor court ruling.
The government can order you to train, fight, and die, on command. ("the draft")
The government can take a portion of your property -or wages - or whatever - as it sees fit.
All authorized by your consent to be a CITIZEN (state or U.S.).
(The USCON complies with this, too. People have rights and powers. Citizens have privileges and immunities. And they’re mutually exclusive.)
Guess what happens to 'big government' if 97% of Americans withdraw consent from the democratic form?
I have nothing to contribute except to say that this thread is probably one of the most civil discourses that I have ever read between the left and the right. I actually was able to put myself in both the left and right mind frame and see things from both points of view. I am finding the ideas very interesting and agree that perhaps the size of the government isn't the issue.
Well I think it is partially because it is in great debates rather than the politics forum. Great Debates topics are much less politically motivated than those in the politics despite the same topic. Well unless it is about welfare...
I would like to have a government that is not merely a cat's paw for billionaires. I also agree that the US is too large a country to be ruled effectively by one central government. Were it not for the issue of slavery, I'd say that the Union should have just left the Confederacy to go its own way without the tragedy of fighting the Civil War.
Even with slavery, the Union should have let the Confederacy go. Slavery wasn't a viable economic model for the South in the long-run anyway - the trend towards industrialization was obvious by the 1860s. The industrial North would have been better off subsidizing technology that would have hastened the obsolescence of slavery.
As counter-intuitive as it seems, I think we would be better served in general if we WEREN'T a United State of America. My ideal structure between the red and blue states would be similar to the US's relationship with Canada. We cooperate when it makes sense economically and we have a pretty much unbreakable bond when it comes to defense. On the other hand, we know that trying to harmonize social and tax policy between the two entities would be an exercise in resentment and polarization.
I truly do not see where the US goes from here. The divisions in the US between conservative/liberal and rural/urban are not going away. The rise of Trump and Sanders is an absolutely perfect manifestation of the future of this country in terms of politics. More polarization, more resentment, less willingness to cooperate, fewer shared values, and more values that are simply incompatible. I've thought for a while now that the "united" portion of our United States is a bit of a fairy tale we tell ourselves. I fear that things cannot go on as they are without political violence becoming an ever increasing possibility.
Yep. Great post and pretty sure I cannot rep you. We see far too many true Scottsman statements in regards to politics. I am mostly moderate with some liberal leanins and conservative but with realistic perspective such as cutting school funding don't help the problems with school, nor does school choice without vouchers as not everyone can get into private schools on scholarships based on education. Just look at the conservatives that want a conservative that is both fiscal and socially conservative like say Ted Cruz.
mkpunk have you ever thought it was curious that socially "conservative" meant Big Government spying on your bedroom, deciding who you can marry, what kind of things you can use ie marijuana (not driving of course) or do in your own home? I always found that language choice frustrating. I am a libertarian on social issues. If you are gay and have a gay partner and smoke marijuana in your house while you netflix and chill, great. If you are homeschooler fundamentalist that doesn't believe in science, great. It's your life, your family, your house. You know??? These nutballs like Cruz just weird the sh*t out of me. He's that creepy uncle. ..they want to control a woman's body, they comment on how women behave or look in public, it goes on and on. Socially 'conservative' my eye. That's socially fascist, which applies to almost all Republicans that are not true libertarians like Rand Paul. Thoughts??
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
