Any extreme end of the spectrum has consequences.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Small Government Vs Large Government
- Thread starter InsurgoInsurgiInsurrect
- Start date
T-Dawg
Self-appointed Lunatic
Why is it that when I view page 2 of the thread, it acts as if that is the end of the thread, but yet I am able to go to page 3 from the list of threads?
Either something is wrong with my internet, or there is a bug in the display :/.
. Logically, a good thing does not stop being good until the marginal cost of more exceeds the marginal benefit, and I don't see this happening. It would take A LOT of government (compared to what we have now) to pass the point where we had too much (this point would be at the point where you would need so many bureaucrats that you begin to have shortages of actual laborers, I think), to the point where I'm not even sure if it's realistically possible to reach this point.
Either something is wrong with my internet, or there is a bug in the display :/.
Good consequences, I assure you, at least on my end
. Logically, a good thing does not stop being good until the marginal cost of more exceeds the marginal benefit, and I don't see this happening. It would take A LOT of government (compared to what we have now) to pass the point where we had too much (this point would be at the point where you would need so many bureaucrats that you begin to have shortages of actual laborers, I think), to the point where I'm not even sure if it's realistically possible to reach this point.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Without doubt, that is the best answer to this debate.
Sometimes, but not always. But jobs are created to give employment. If jobs were created to make people money, don't you think there would be an abundance of them so investors could make more money? Jobs are created not because of some investor, but because the market favors the goods or services being provided. No demand, no jobs. And saying no investors, no jobs is to ignore the small businesses that do it without.
I honestly do not understand how Ron Paul isn't dominating the Republican race as he is the only one who actually does stand for a smaller government rather than super big theocratic war machine of a government.
No, when you flood the market, the prices fall to a level that is not advantagous.
I am a small business, do you think I am ignoring myself?
Ron Paul's views are to extreme for them to be taken seriously. He would be an ineffective President and get little support from either side.
Too extreme for all you fence sit'n moderate new age yuppies, but I like his brand of extremism.
T-Dawg
Self-appointed Lunatic
I think what he's suggesting is raising demand, not supply. Raising demand would raise prices, not lower them, and as a result more businesses would try to supply the market, creating jobs.
(The problem that no one thinks about, is, of course, that the new jobs created will create even more consumers which will need to be filled by more jobs. You eventually run out of people to work with and/or resources to exploit and the whole system implodes. The infinite expansion problem seems to be an inescapable one for capitalism.)
He's also just as theocratic as the others, in addition to having economic views that are even worse than those of the mainstream Republicans. I'm not sure why people don't notice this.
I like to listen to him, I agree in principle with him. The thing is, I want to balance the budget first and cut the deposite second.
Could you imagine our economy if we did both at the same time?
Then his foriegn policy scares me to death.......
Yes we should stop foriegn aid, yes we should leave Afganistan, but hanging our greatest allies out to dry is another thing all together.
Other approaches could be better than Paul's.
But his is far better than what we have.
Yah!
Our current foreign policy scares me even more.
But I'll give Obama credit for unwillingness to help Israel launch an unprovoked attack on Iran.
Just today on NPR, I heard news that Israel is openly asking us to participate in the attack.
What vicious thoughtless thugs would think this way?
I don't think the latter would happen.
There's a difference between mutual defense agreements & our acting as policeman & bonkers rich uncle to the world.
Last edited:
dust1n
Zindīq
Give me an adequately sized government.
No offense dust1nYour generation is the give me generation IMHO.
Mr Spinkles
Mr
Yes, all of them actually claim to favor small government, which is my point. (Newt may be an exception, I'm not sure.)
I beg to differ.
The small vs big gov discussion is meaningful, but we must recognize that some who wear the mantle of small gov are simply cloaking their big gov underwear.
I imagine that they might honestly like the idea of limited constitutional government, but it doesn't win elections.
So walking the walk is left to loons like Ron Paul. He's my kind of loon.
Last edited:
Mr Spinkles
Mr
Emphasis added. But consider the Republican candidates who wear the mantle of small gov. Are only "some" of them cloaking their big gov underwear? Or would "all, excluding Ron Paul" be more accurate?Revoltingest said:
I have no idea how many who preach small gov will practice big gov. If we look only at those running for prez, I'd be that very few genuine
small gov types get very far, given that promises of largess win votes. But as we get more local, there are likely far more small gov types.
We might have to settle for those who steer in the direction of "small", compared to their competition. When too big, smaller beats bigger.
Last edited:
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
I'd rather have him as president than anyone else the Reps have cursed the nation with, and I don't see how he could be any worse than Obama, other than a potential problem with opening the doors wide open for states to discriminate against any group they want to (after all, it was a "states rights" issue to continue treating black people worse than dog **** about 60 years ago), and for corporate corruption to deepen because the only entity that can take them on (legally) refuses to. But then again Citizens United and the Supreme Court has done a fine job at securing corporate corruption and governmental integration without needing a Libertarian to weaken the federal government.
Then I ask, do you create jobs to appease someone else and make them money, or do you hire because you need the extra help and can afford it?
The main reason I consider him a viable option for the Republicans is he is the only one that isn't obsessed with gay sex. Even Romney became obsessed with it to appease the far-right fan base that is driving the Republican primaries. I don't like his brand of small government, but at least he isn't riding the Jesus wave the other candidates are.
However, I do think a more realistic approach towards "big vs small" government is a medium-sized government. No one, except for fools and fascist, celebrates a large government as it can more easily infringe on human rights. And of course we can't have too small of a government because we do need health laws, we need roads to be build, police, fire fighters, and of course a military to defend against invaders. So rather than bicker of if it should be small or big, because anyone with a brain can see that either has benefits and short comings, why not balance the two? Much in the way Capitalism and Socialism function best when properly balanced, so should a government.
But then again if the government is effective, just, proper, and the general population flourishes and enjoys a spectrum of rights and liberties, who really cares if the government is big or small?
InsurgoInsurgiInsurrect
Member
This small vs large government is something you seem more equipped to explain than I so if you have time I would love a lesson.
So far as I know we are our government. We elect them and we pay them. They are kind of like us in the sense that they represent the people that voted them in. A New Jersey senator is probably like more citizens of New Jersey compared with a senator from Montana who is probably most like the people that voted him or her into office. Is that fair to say?
So you are talking about government and a "small" one vs a "large" one. I don't really get those terms and it seems like they are general enough that you can use them and mean almost anything and I could disagree and use the same terms as you do. Is that right? Because I think we need to better quantify our views to have some type of meaningful interaction. (By all means don't feel obligated)
So when I think about government I think about federal and state taxes and that is primarily because that is how I fund my government. Do you fund your government? I also vote I guess so election day is also on the brain but not as much as taxes. Whether its capital gains, sales or income tax I am always paying attention.
So we spend this money where does it go? Fair question? I don't think we need to be in Iraq or Afghanistan. We probably don't need to go to Iran either... I am more worried about pakistan but not convinced we need to go there either... Regardless how is my government I fund spending my dollars?
So we pay lots of taxes... Where does it go? Defense? Education? Health care? Transportation? Space Exploration? Research and development?
Where does it go? Where should it go?
Defense can mean a lot right? We can have like international defense or police defense. Who provides what and how important are either? Odds are if people aren't riding through your neighborhood armed and driving business out or scaring families out than you probably aren't too concerned about police. If other countries are not dropping bombs or invading your country than you probably are not worried about war.
United we are stronger than apart. Together we are almost 400 million people and if we work together we can insure all of us live the best possible life our country can provide.
I could state example after example but the bottom line is we are a really wealthy and powerful country. We could easily explore space and the ocean and keep innovating and taking care of all our citizens from rich to poor but we have chosen not too.
We seem to decide everyday that the people of america are not fit to rule this country and we need to let the powerful and rich people take the reigns and lead this country as they see fit. No more should we have government for the people, by the people and of the people but rather we should be governed by the few who have the means, wealth and desire to have more of both.
Its an interesting choice considering most of these people care more about world wide matters than national matters.
Why is ANYONE in America homeless and starving? Unless they are crazy how does that happen and why do we want to turn our government over to people who think vast scores of more americans should end up homeless and starving? Let alone loons who don't believe in birth control? When these charismatic charming people die and your left with the country they left behind is it worth it?
I just don't get the idea behind small government?
Should we not pay Social Security? Medicare? Welfare? Food Stamps? Military? Firemen? Police?
What should we drop? I think you can figure out what your state, property and federal taxes pay for... What are your objections and how do you want to be smaller? Where would you cut? Do you need less cops in your town, less teachers, less street lights, less national parks, less firemen, less roads, less food inspectors, less zoning departments or less war overseas?
If you can be more specific I feel we could have a better conversation. We are basically rid of nasa, what should we get rid of next?
Last edited:
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
This is best described as how the more influential Founding Fathers (such as Thomas Jefferson) envisioned America, which is that political parties can go to hell because in the end they exist to serve the will of the party instead of the will of the people. The '08 elections show we are a very split nation, but yet with a Republican victory in '10 showed they really don't seem to care about what the people want or think or we wouldn't have so many voter restriction laws, Indiana legislatures would not be focused on singing the national anthem in correct tune and lyrics or the Right-to-Work bill which had alot of opposition, and sense the majority of Americans now support marriage equality if the parties truly wanted to serve the will of the people then the Republican hopefuls would not have their unhealthy obsession with gay sex.
To say they serve us and are like us, and to assume they have any sort of knowledge of state or constitutional law, is very naive at the least.
Last edited:
Who, me? I'm just an ignorant fan of small gov.
I've no argument against that. But I'd add that separateness comes in when a pol is elected.
They generally experience:
- Perquisites of office which they didn't see in the private sector, eg, junkets, franking privileges.
- The need to be re-elected to the job, which alters their values & goals.
- Enormous power over others can be addicting & corrupting.
- Some new immunities to law, eg, insider trading, zoning laws, building codes.
- Becoming part of a culture separate from the little people.
The terms are more defined in a political context. Basically, we "small gov" types see government's job as defined by the Constitution (securing liberty, etc),
& eschewing functions not mandated by the Constitution: foreign adventurism (eg, policeman of the world), entitlement programs, massive micro-regulation,
high taxes, starting & running big businesses (eg, Fannie & Freddie), bailing out failing big businesses, etc. "Big gov" would be a version which does everything
that citizens (& non-citizens) deem to be 'good', even if it exceeds constitutional authority.
I note that sometimes people confuse the Republican Party with small government advocates. Some Pubs are small gov fans, but most favor bloated government,
eg Bush's No Child Left Behind, starting wars, expanding the reach of the IRS. McCain is big into speech regulation & foreign adventurism. Big gov types they are.
For me, "government" brings to mind taxes & regulation. I try not to think about elections.
To say how gov spends it is beyond the scope of this thread.
But I agree that we shouldn't be warring in those countries. This is a typical "small gov" view.
Much of this depends upon what level of government we're talking about. I see education as local rather than federal.
Same for transportation & health care. Defense of the country would be mostly federal.
Much of what politicians call "defense" is actually offensive, eg, our possible unprovoked attack upon Iran. Of course, leaders will
claim provocation, but I argue that we're more belligerent than many of our foes. It smacks more of hegemony than defense.
If we are to have big government, those goals would be better than continual war IMO.
But I don't like the idea of a nanny gov "taking care of all our citizens". That would foster a culture of dependency
& pose long term problems of declining productivity. A life of comfort & ease is debilitating to a society.
I don't see it that way. Rather, the attraction of power & competition to get it will see aggressive people rise to the top.
They tend to be richer & more powerful.
You do get it somewhat. You recognize that
pi***ing away lives & dollars in fruitless foreign conquest & wars diverts resources from domestic use.
Don't buy into the straw man argument that small government means no government. Of course we small gov types want a military for self defense,
cops & courts to enforce the law, fire protection & other basic governmental functions. But such functions shouldn't be bloated beyond what's needed.
As for social programs to provide food, housing, health care & jobs to the needy, I don't see those as functions of government. But if such services
are to be provided, they could a much better job than they do with the taxes we pay.
NASA will still be around, but their focus has been rightly shifted from manned exploration to telepresenceIf you can be more specific I feel we could have a better conversation. We are basically rid of nasa, what should we get rid of next?
& remote sensing....a much more cost effective & productive approach to understand the universe.
Last edited:
InsurgoInsurgiInsurrect
Member
Perhaps... Perhaps the rest of this post will clear it up for me but why do you keep saying small government. What does that mean and why do you like using that particular phrase?
I think I understand what you are trying to say and think that yes when we elect people into power we should elect people who can handle that elevation of power. That is clearly not what has been going on and you seem to be dancing around that sombrero. Honestly I think people can deal with that particular set of challenges quite well.
That said you have a point. (A few) Prerequisites of the office I don't think is one of them but let's look at the rest. The need to be re-elected. This is kind of center stage this election cycle isn't it? The whole super-pac and how much time do you spend campaigning vs doing what you were elected to do? Get the money out of politics etc... I think there is a lot of merit to this discussion.
Enormous power corrupts. This is just a fact of power. How would you address that? How does being for small government address that fact? Should elected officials have less power or should the people electing them be better educated to understand what they are voting for? (That seems silly even as I read it... Would it be better to educate the masses that don't vote at all what not voting means?) The study of what having power does to people and really even simple and relatively silly power over other people can do is an interesting study.
Immunity to laws? This is actually true and bills like STOCK do exist. (Stop trading on congressional knowledge) This should be stopped and our elected officials should follow the same legal laws as the every day common citizen.
Culture difference... Maybe. It happens. If you won a billion dollars tomorrow would you be the same person as you are today? Maybe but I don't know how that answer holds up for say 99 out 100 people. I would argue but I think the barrel of examples supporting your viewpoint is larger than my lunchbox over here. As a point though then how can we change that culture to align it more with the people they are supposed to be supporting?
Interesting view. I am not a fan of policing the world either. Entitlement programs I question but honestly we can't just let people die in america. We are a ridiculous rich country and if someone is down on their luck we should have a room with a shared bathroom and kitchen stocked with Ramen they can go to until they get their act together. Maybe its forever they live there eating ramen and whatever they manage to grow on their own... but if they need aid we can provide aid. I get the impression that if such a place existed then you feel everyone would flock there to live on the taxes provided by the work of everyone else and I don't agree with that view. I think most people in that type of place want to fight to get back to being self sufficient. Not everyone but more than 50%. I also feel we are all entitled to our rights. I would want to add the entitlement to medical treatment. I think private medical insurance is an incredibly profitable business with large bonuses... Is there is a reason for that? Can we instead use that profit to improve medical care and coverage? Use it to cover instead of deny more people? Centralize all the disparate systems into one easy and simple system? I know it is probably an aside to this discussion but I think we as a country can decide to not just reward actors and sports stars but that we could use some money to care for the people too poor to be noticed as needing our attention. How much money are people donating to this presidential campaign and how logical/ethical are those donations?
Elections are an important topic though? As far as taxes... I can't pin point where I am personally overpaying for anything. Perhaps property taxes are a bit high but the town seems to be using the dollars quite well.
Its a government view yes? We should use our taxes on the governed to govern them? To protect them? I don't see why it is a "Small Gov" view. Isn't it just a view of everyone who thinks their government should not be warring with foreign countries unless its for national defense?
Is being on Wic, Welfare and food stamps a life of comfort and ease? Perhaps for some. For most I would think its a life of shame and hard work and a motivation to do something more with your life. As far as taking care of people that need it I would say why not? Lets have shelters and soup kitchens and lets guarantee you can get a warm bed and a meal without having to actually kill anyone. (Prisoners are fed, clothed and housed) Its not a life of luxury but we can at least give a bed and a daily meal to anyone who needs it.
Your argument is odd to me in one sense though. A life of comfort and ease is debilitating to a society? How exactly do you think millionaires and billionaires live and are their lives necessarily less comfortable and less easy than your common homeless person? I feel you have flipped that entire argument logically upside down. Are you saying Billionaires and Millionaires are too disconnected from regular folk and have it too easy and too comfortable that their power they have been granted by allowing money to control politics is having a detrimental effect on our society or are you saying the welfare recipient who lives in their cushy section 8 housing and buys all their gourmet food with food stamps is the problem because its just too easy to survive and enjoy their life of entitlement? I mean if your a kid born to a welfare family are you debilitating to a society because your life is too easy compared to say a baby born a millionaire and how made his first billion before he or she turned 16? Do you think being on the verge of death and languishing in the hole of the american "safety net for the poor" and walking miles with your children in winter to dine at soup kitchens is an aspiration of most americans?
Psychopaths are exceptionally good at this game. They are better than normal folk and they do tend to be richer & more powerful. But are they morally better? Whether you think they make good leaders or not - our country should be governed by the people that make up the majority of the country and not by the few that make the most money... The idea that we should be ruled by business or by money are different government systems than american democracy. (Corporatocracy and Plutocracy?) (I'm going to risk a star trek reference and say your ideology sounds either like the Ferengi or the Klingons.)
Last edited: