Big Government, Small Government

[A18]

[Small government] made sense in a more agrarian nation of widely dispersed population centers.  It makes little sense now.

I'd like to hear the rationale behind that statement, which has always struck me as groundless.

[fezzyfestoon]

Ideally I'd like to see a much smaller federal US government and the state governments fill that void according to the wants and needs of the residents of each state.

You are aware of the fact that the reason why the federal government has grown to the extant it has was because of economic catastrophes and war, aren't you?  And as long as we remain the world's most powerful nation and superpower, that it simply is not feasible to shrink the size of the federal government.  You had better hope that China becomes a parliamentary democracy and a responsible superpower in the not-too distant future before the United States feels secure enough to relinquish its empire to its successor.  Then you can realistically set about the task of shrinking the federal government to a level you feel is more appropriate.

That's why I say ideally.  There are a lot of problems with the idea and it's like cooking spicy food.  You can always add more, but you can't take it out.  It's a lot harder to take away the big government now that we have it, especially in an international sense.  But there are a lot of things right now that we should start scaling back.  Things that the federal government has no business doing in the first place (see the Constitution for that).

[Free Palestine]

Why should our country remain "the most powerful country on earth"?  I would rather be poor and free than rich with little freedom.  The latter is what big government creates.  Politics will become so centralized that it will only be open for an elite few - it's already happening now.

Plus, what did the Roman Empire and the USSR have in common?  They were both centralized superpowers, and they both fell.  America is a (atleast it used to be) semi-voluntary union of states, with each state having it's own sovereign government.

[War on Want]

Good government.  Which is often big, sometimes even intrusive...

[War on Want]

Why should our country remain "the most powerful country on earth"?  I would rather be poor and free than rich with little freedom.  The latter is what big government creates.  Politics will become so centralized that it will only be open for an elite few - it's already happening now.

Plus, what did the Roman Empire and the USSR have in common?  They were both centralized superpowers, and they both fell.  America is a (atleast it used to be) semi-voluntary union of states, with each state having it's own sovereign government.

First off in America you have loads of freedoms as of right now and chances are you have a pretty wealthy lifestyle compared to the rest of the world. If America becomes more socialistic and you become more wealthy, I wouldn't see you losing any freedoms. You would probably be taxed more but you would still be more wealthy.

I'm sure you wouldn't rather be living in a village without electricity, proper medical care etc in order to be free because that would just be stupid. I'd gladly live in a somewhat fascist society if I was comforted by some basic modern things as opposed to living in a libertarian society with nothing.

[Person Man]

lol, false dichotomy

Ditto. 

Yeah. I see what you are saying and I agree. I pity those who compare the size of government with the size of other things that are personally endowed with. Yes, this is a dick/titty joke...and talking about the "size" of things really arouses this issue. In other words, its not the size of your government, its how you use it.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Good government.  Which is often big, sometimes even intrusive...

[Antonio the Sixth]

Big government when it comes to avoid people damaging other people or themselves, limit excessive inequalities, provide basic needs and regulate markets imperfections. Not when it comes to defend a so-called morality that is only an ideological construction of reactionaries that refuse people do what they want even when they damage nobody and nothing.

[Democratic Hawk]

Good government.  Which is often big, sometimes even intrusive...

And preferably solvent . The choice in 2004 was between big insolvent government (Bush) and big solvent government (Kerry)

Not much chance of government being solvent any time soon, however. It just isn't a realistic option - all things considered

[Vepres]

I support whatever works. Often that leads to a small government solution, but that is not always the case. Environmental protections are a good example of a situation where big government works.

[Хahar 🤔]

Politics will become so centralized that it will only be open for an elite few - it's already happening now.

The opposite trend has always occured in American history.

[Citizen James]

Why should our country remain "the most powerful country on earth"?  I would rather be poor and free than rich with little freedom.  The latter is what big government creates.  Politics will become so centralized that it will only be open for an elite few - it's already happening now.

Plus, what did the Roman Empire and the USSR have in common?  They were both centralized superpowers, and they both fell.  America is a (atleast it used to be) semi-voluntary union of states, with each state having it's own sovereign government.

That reminds me of an old joke:

Japanese eat a diet which is low in fat, and have a low obesity rate.   The French eat a diet which is high in fat, and have a low obesity rate.

Therefore, speaking English causes people to become fat.

It is foolish to mistake correlation and causation; and worse yet if you cherry pick the examples to fit your preconceived notions.

"small government" and 'big government" have devolved into meaningless catch phrases.  Government needs to be efficient and effective in the job it does.   Slashing the size of the army might make sense for isolationists, but none whatsoever to advocates of Pax Americana.   Cutting the number of mail carriers might help UPS (which charges more), but it would not be in most people's best interest.

On the other hand, finding unnecessary redundancies, and departments which have outlived their usefulness can be cut to save taxpayer funds.  (just don't complain if a military base cut/elimination undermines your local economy to save everyone else money).