The Size of Government Thread.

[Sailor.X]

This thread is just to ask what size of Government you would prefer. Do you like Big Government. Do you like medium sized government. Do you like small government.

After being in the workforce for nearly 30 years. In corporate America for 2 years. At a Newspaper for half a year and in Security for 15 years. I have come to see medium sized government as the best for everyone. Big Government lead to Bureaucracy. And from first hand observation you can't trust Corporations and small businesses to not try and skirt some beneficial laws (Human Nature always rears it's ugly head when regulation is lacking). I have settled on having a government that allows for innovation and puts hard checks on businesses so that they don't try and game the system. But what do you prefer?

 

[Hlaalu Agent]

Honestly, it would be none of the above. I wanted limited government, constrained to the proper size to complete its necessary and constitutional enumerated functions, and of course what ever additional size needed to properly co-ordinate with other levels of government, and other actors in civil society. Though my preference is for smaller and decentralized government, with power divested to the lowest level things can be efficiently done.

So given such difficulties, I will say medium, since it currently lies closest to what I think works and what works for the cases I am concerned with (Canada and the USA). Both probably can't handle a small government given their size, regional variation, and diversity, though government should still be as small as possible, to avoid concentration of power, inefficiency, overreach, tyranny, et al.

 

[Yinko]

Depends on the goal. If the goal is personal freedoms then smaller is better, if the goal is national freedom (power) then bigger is better, is the goal is economic protectionism/prosperity then middlish is probably betterish.

 

[Knowledgeispower]

Hmmmm are we counting the miltiary as part of the government? Because that can be large while everything else remains either small or medium in size

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

As small as possible. governments are only as good as the people that run them and considering they are ran by humans....I can tell you even living in a small town a government hasin't made a dollar it doesn't want to spend 10x over.

 

[Firebat]

What is a purpose of the government?

The purpose of the government is to resolve issues that must be resolved no matter what. Resolved poorly perhaps, but resolved no matter what. A society can fail at producing bikes, so there is no particular need for government's intervention there. Society can not fail at defending itself or securing vital resources and infrastructure or producing general rule set - because the result would be disorder, massive losses and emergence of a power/powers that would become the next government.

The problem of modern government is the fact that as our civilization grows more and more complex and sophisticated, it becomes more brittle. Thus the number of problems that must be resolved and can not be left alone multiplies with every year.

2000 years ago one could rule a land with a limited law set and a bunch of soldiers. Today one has to secure a whole host of complex and vast service chains, ranging from power supply and sewers to central banks with emergency credit infusions.

So the government is going to be big and grow even bigger, as more an more problems require some form of government intervention. And since organized entities always have an advantage over individual citizens, a small government would not surrender power to the people - but to the entities that can muscle their way into the particular area. And becoming de-facto government in the process.
Like cartels in Mexico.

 

[Sailor.X]

Hmmmm are we counting the miltiary as part of the government? Because that can be large while everything else remains either small or medium in size

No the military would be counted separately because having a tiny military would be National Suicide in this day and age for the US

 

[ShieldWife]

It’s a very complicated question. My knee jerk reaction is to error on the side of smaller government, but I do think there are a lot of important things that a government can do. In some cases, I may actually want to increase the role of the federal government. We need to government to regulate citizenship and protect our borders, for example. That is one of the most important duties of a government that ours has been shirking lately. We need a military and defense, though I always say we should use it sparingly. I actually wouldn’t object to national health care and some degree of reasonable environmental regulations. I think we need to regulate banking and investment too, though all too often the foxes end up guarding that henhouse. The government should take a role in protecting our trading interests abroad as well, making sure that our businesses and customers aren’t being exploited. There are a number of big corporations who are really nasty that a strong government, if it’s honest and that is a big IF, could keep in line.

In regard to most internal policies, I favor greater states’ rights, so that local communities can design their laws in accordance to their needs and values.

I would say over all I’d favor something between small and medium.

 

[Cherico]

I think the central problem with that question is that quite simply put the world is too small.

Humanity as a whole is growing, the resources of this world are getting lesser and lesser and for all intents and purposes there are no frontiers no escape. The manic souls are in the process of devouring every one else.

So the question of the size of government?

Well Ideally you have a varity you have tons of them all competing for people or sealed off in isolation, some people like big government I'm not one of them but some people like that, some people like small government some people want some thing in between. Then you get into government policy and you reach a situation where no one is happy.

If people could leave and found their own governments, found their own countries add infintium then I think you could have lasting peace instead of the current situation that makes no one happy.

 

[Sixgun McGurk]

I would prefer to pick up my rifle and move farther west whenever I saw smoke coming from a cabin nearby but those good days are gone. Government is a cruel plague upon mankind and you have to understand that it always works the same, no matter who runs it. The only rule of government is the golden rule, meaning that he who has the gold makes the rules. For that reason, keeping it as small and harmless as possible, with its functions divided between state local and as many other types of government that can be invented to keep regulatory power diffuse is the only way to live without its threat growing to the point that fatcat jack is making laws that you have to buy his stuff for 'reasons.'

 

[Lord Sovereign]

The state has a limited purpose, that of providing law and order, defence of the realm and the preservation of tradition. Normally that last one wouldn't be necessary, but given that the left, consumed by deconstructionist self hated and socialism, have metastasized into a very real danger to national cohesion when all sense tells them to stop, the state must take an interest in keeping the old ways alive.

So small but strong in the areas where it's relevant would be my preference.

Government is a cruel plague upon mankind and you have to understand that it always works the same, no matter who runs it.

Naive. Ancapistan would be ground into a fucking paste by the first man who fancies himself a warlord. Frontier life sounds like complete shit as well. Bandits here there and everywhere, rather angry native tribesmen and unforgiving terrain and weather. The Wild West was an awful time and place to live in.

You know, there's a very good reason we gave up the Hunter Gatherer life style.

 

[Cherico]

The state has a limited purpose, that of providing law and order, defence of the realm and the preservation of tradition. Normally that last one wouldn't be necessary, but given that the left, consumed by deconstructionist self hated and socialism, have metastasized into a very real danger to national cohesion when all sense tells them to stop, the state must take an interest in keeping the old ways alive.

So small but strong in the areas where it's relevant would be my preference.



Naive. Ancapistan would be ground into a fucking paste by the first man who fancies himself a warlord. Frontier life sounds like complete shit as well. Bandits here there and everywhere, rather angry native tribesmen and unforgiving terrain and weather. The Wild West was an awful time and place to live in.

You know, there's a very good reason we gave up the Hunter Gatherer life style.

There are people who absolutely thrive in frontier conditions, and while that life is harsh there are also pretty solid rewards.

 

[Sixgun McGurk]

Its called freedom. Some folks don't care for it because it includes the freedom to fail, but in the long run there really is no long run, so do you really want to spend your allotted time being controlled by those that think themselves your betters?

 

[Sailor.X]

Its called freedom. Some folks don't care for it because it includes the freedom to fail, but in the long run there really is no long run, so do you really want to spend your allotted time being controlled by those that think themselves your betters?

But that is the history of Humanity as a whole there has never been a time ever where the strong has not had control over the weak. Because as soon as you think you are safe and far enough away. Something or someone will exert control. Just look at al of the various Sub Saharan and North American Tribes. They were as small government as you can get and the Strong still showed up from time to time to exert control. That is not even bringing into the mix religion. Which in history has had the strong show up to exert control over the weak. The strong exerting control over the weak is literally baked into the nature of life itself. We see it all the time in the natural world. Thinking it can ever be eliminated is a pipe dream. Because no matter how hard you try it will always keep happening. Humanity has been at it for over 80,000 years and the cycle has been in place since day one.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

But that is the history of Humanity as a whole there has never been a time ever where the strong has not had control over the weak. Because as soon as you think you are safe and far enough away. Something or someone will exert control. Just look at al of the various Sub Saharan and North American Tribes. They were as small government as you can get and the Strong still showed up from time to time to exert control. That is not even bringing into the mix religion. Which in history has had the strong show up to exert control over the weak. The strong exerting control over the weak is literally baked into the nature of life itself. We see it all the time in the natural world. Thinking it can ever be eliminated is a pipe dream. Because no matter how hard you try it will always keep happening. Humanity has been at it for over 80,000 years and the cycle has been in place since day one.

so why are we talking?

 

[Sailor.X]

so why are we talking?

To express our preference for the size of government. It does not take away from the human dynamic that is all within us. As the old saying goes "It is what it is."

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

To express our preference for the size of government. It does not take away from the human dynamic that is all within us. As the old saying goes "It is what it is."

another saying: "talk is cheap."

 

[Sixgun McGurk]

Talk is cheap and a rifle hits hard. They didn't have those through most of that miserable span of history, which is why we now have some hint of rights. Its also why the government and those that feel comfortable using it to regulate the rest of us so desperately want to take them away. The best government is a small government that remains that way.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

There are people who absolutely thrive in frontier conditions, and while that life is harsh there are also pretty solid rewards.

...right up until they get scalped by an angry native and the military has to be called in to help them. Seriously, how many times did the US Army have to back up settlers and frontier men during the age of the Wild West?

 

[Cherico]

...right up until they get scalped by an angry native and the military has to be called in to help them. Seriously, how many times did the US Army have to back up settlers and frontier men during the age of the Wild West?

quite a few times but with out those settlers and frontier men the country would not exist as it does now.

If your an expanding country having people willing and able to move and deal with those risks to life and safety benifit you. Like wise when space travel finally stops being a joke with a sad punch line those manic souls who leave earth will make earth a more prosperious place as those resources are brought back as trade Items.

I am not saying one way of life is superior to another only that there are trade offs to any decision you make, different people have different value systems different ways of thinking. Right now their all forced to live on a shrinking world with fewer resources thats not a situation that makes any one happy.

IF we spread out you can have a level of governance that makes you happy, others can have levels that make them happy. And if your current situation sucks you can strike out and create your own way of doing things.