Big government is destroying the US and the world

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by nec207, Jul 24, 2013.

  1. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2011
    #1
    I have talk to many people and my self agree big government in both conservative and liberal are ideas from FDR ,communism and socialism.

    I think the meaning what is big government is lacking clarification. Has both conservative and liberal are big government that gets people live and bedroom.

    Also the constitution and US founding fathers has I get vibe from them they where very suspicious of government and too much government power .

    Both conservative and liberal in US have gotten very big. It may be true to some degree that because the US is republican system not a Parliamentary system there more check of balance of power and states rights have more power than other countries.


    Ask a liberal and they will say big government in my house,work place and my body like abortion , gays and lesbian , sex ,porn ,morality and so on.

    Ask a libertarian they would say both conservative and liberals are big government and both on economics and social issues.

    Where conservative are big government on social issues and smaller government on economics where liberals are big government on economics but smaller government on social issues.

    Typical talk normally goes like this.

    anti- smoking laws thank the liberals the big government but hay they for pot .

    That ban junk food in schools and ban large pop/soda drinks for the well being of the person. Ideas from liberals big government must take car of you from the roots of welfare state.


    That ban sagging pants/ baggy pants in some cities or areas !! That blame the conservative . But hay you got big government than..Did that come from communism and socialism?

    Oh a other one that comes up is how conservative normally push god in society and control morality . But is that big government ideas from communism and socialism?

    Communism or Socialism normally they hate capitalism. Normally communism do away with capitalism where Socialism control it or limit it. Both are very strong on the welfare state .The collective good of community is more important the the person right.

    Two things of big government .

    1. large welfare state .
    2.The collective good of community is more important the the person right.

    But then did conservative steal that part of it to push god in society and control morality ? And liberals steal that part to have the government take well being of the person .


    I guess we need to ask what is big government and where did it come from .Would the US founding fathers or US framers really wanted a decentralize government ? Would they be very mad at both conservative and liberal in US today of very big government.


    I guess libertarian , anarchy or liberal libertarian would be political views of this ati -big government and fear of too much government control and strong decentralize government with proper democracy.
     
  2. macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #2
    I gave up trying to read your post before I got halfway, but based on what I was able to get out of it you might want to think about the fact that the constitution was put into place to try to create a stronger federal government since the first few years of the US under the articles of confederation proved that a small government didn't work.
     
  3. champ01, Jul 24, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 24, 2013

    Guest

    #3
    We got one planet earth yet most people believe that we should divide that planet in countries that have their own laws above nature.

    Most of those people know nothing about history. How would you explain to those people that borders are made by people not nature? That greed comes from scarcity and that dividing everyone with a label/passport supports that.

    Yes we do need one world government (where everyone with scientific knowledge should have a say in) but not one as we have today in almost every country. Those have only one purpose and that is keeping the monetary economic system alive. What we absolutely don't need is politics.
     
  4. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2012
    Location:
    California
    #4
    Personally I'm Ok with big government that works properly. But I have yet to see a functioning big government that doesn't have any issues. Personally I feel like money in politics is the real problem.
     
  5. macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #5
    Anti-smoking laws are interesting in many ways. It is clear that there was significant demand for pubs without smokers; however until it was legally required pubs did seem to be extremely reluctant to make that happen - proving that private business isn't always great at solving problems.

    However at this point I think the anti-smoking laws could be repealed - possibly it would be best with some regulation (e.g. no smoking at the bar and/or requirements for appropriate air circulation).
     
  6. zin
    macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #6
    The government is smaller today than it has ever been. It relinquished its control over the markets and wider economy around 30 years ago. This is perhaps the same for every national government.

    If you want to blame something that is (and has been) destroying the US and the world, blame the markets that have been running loose for the past 30 years or so.
     
  7. Ugg
    macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #7
    I'm with the others in that its hard to understand your point. I'd like to point out however that Thomas Jefferson who rammed through the Louisiana Purchase hated the idea of big government but expanded the role of the federal govt. way beyond what any president has since him.

    Also, Lincoln's Homestead Act of 1864, directly led to the Dust Bowl of the 1930s. After the railroad concessions, the HA was probably one of the greatest (socialist) government giveaways ever.

    The major historical problem in the US has np ever, ever been big government but it has ALWAYS been big business.

    Care to respond?
     
  8. macrumors 603

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #8
    That isn't exactly true. Anti-smoking laws aren't about banning smoking. They tend to be about preventing others from being affected by it. That shouldn't be any different with something like pot. No one would suggest allowing it anywhere cigarettes are not deemed acceptable. It's not really worth policing though.
     
  9. macrumors 6502a

    NewishMacGuy

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2007
    #9
    Love the thread title. Too bad I can't make sense of the OP.

    Big business without big government (to force you into doing business with them) is no threat.

    >
     
  10. macrumors 603

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #10
    There is no such thing as a "good" big government.

    Bureaucracies by nature infringe upon elements of individual freedom. The more bureaucracies there are the less free you are, until the republic is replaced by an oligarchy.

    Kinda like what we have now...mixed with a dash of corporate plutocracy.
     
  11. zin
    macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #11
    I'm sure that's what they want you to think. Let's get the government out of everything so that citizens have absolutely no say in how anything is done.
     
  12. macrumors 603

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #12
    Did you take even a single moment to evaluate what you wrote?

    All democratic governments will eventually devolve into an oligarchic state as it grows and creates bureaucracies, which are nothing more than control mechanisms, until true democracy and individual freedom are impossible to maintain.

    The accountability and malleability of a small democratic republic will always give way to the will of the people to a much greater extent than a massive centralized government.

    A large, overly bureaucratic central government is completely inverse to the goals of a true democratic republic because it dilutes the direct voice of the people.
     
  13. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2009
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #13
    ^ This made no sense.

    Anyway...

    The US government is definitely way too big and out of control, both in being far out of bounds from its constitutional limitations, and definitely in terms of runaway spending.

    What's truly going to sink us is the unfunded liabilities. Estimates I've seen put it as high as $90 trillion dollars. There's simply not enough money on the entire planet to cover that sort of mismanagement. Eventually, when the proverbial can can no longer be kicked farther down the road, the gargantuan financial disaster that wil ensue is going to be enormous.
     
  14. zin
    macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #14
    How does it make no sense? Government is of, by, and for the people. If you make your government smaller, with less authority and jurisdiction, then citizens have increasingly smaller input on how things are run on the wider scale.

    Forget big, the US Government is too small. And it makes itself smaller each and every year through the same corrupt individuals who originally were saying that it should be smaller. The US Government sold off its assets a long time ago to the lowest bidder, it deregulated the markets on the wider scale a long time ago, and now it is paying the price.

    Private companies run everything, they own infrastructure that was previously in possession of the government (the people), they even run large parts of the US Government. How can you expect citizens to have any say in anything if your government also has no say?
     
  15. macrumors 65816

    citizenzen

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #15
    It makes a lot of sense to me.

    ----------

    We need to think less about size and more about functionality, efficiency and long-term sustainability.
     
  16. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2009
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #16
    That's one big string of typical leftwing drivel. So many of the usual moonbat notions it's not worth responding to.

    When you grow up one day and face reality, not just spewing moonbat talking points, then lets have this discussion on a rational reality-based level. Until then...
     
  17. zin
    macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #17
    Please elaborate. I don't think anything I said was irrational.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but the government did deregulate the markets significantly around 30 years ago. The government did sell off its assets (and continues to do so). The government does contract out a large part of its activity to private companies.

    I would also like to be educated on this "reality" that you are so informed of.

    BTW: As long as we're talking about drivel, you should stop talking about unfunded liabilities. Those measures, especially on the time frame you were referring to, are nothing more than scaremongering drivel invented by the right wing.
     
  18. macrumors 6502a

    NewishMacGuy

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2007
    #18
    Private corporations are required by the government to track and control their unfunded liabilities, presumably because those same unfunded liabilities are relevant to an assessment of their current financial health.

    The only reason why the level of unfunded liabilities might matter less for the government is that it claims an unlimited power to seize our property to cover future liabilities by force, whereas corporations have to cover their liabilities by producing goods for voluntary trade. One method of covering those liabilities is morally and ethically sound and the other isn't. Guess which is which.

    What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

    >

    ----------

    I think what he was referring to is the illogic that government can represent the people better than they can represent themselves. Any time you concentrate decision-making power into the hands of a smaller group of people (by expanding government power) you necessarily remove that power from the larger group of individuals. So it is illogical (and therefore irrational) to present an argument that expanding the power of government expands the power of the people.

    >
     
  19. macrumors 65816

    citizenzen

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #19
    The government is the people representing themselves.

    What alternative would you suggest?
     
  20. macrumors 6502a

    NewishMacGuy

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2007
    #20
    The government is a very small group of people representing a very large group of people, thus it is a super inefficient way of people representing themselves - and will necessarily be very poorly done (from the perspective of representing people's interests). It is a pretty efficient mechanism for controlling people (and stealing from them) however.

    I would suggest severely limiting the size and scope of the government thus freeing people to make decisions for themselves (and in the process truly represent themselves). I take no credit for this suggestion as it is as old as the principles on which this country was founded - older even.

    >
     
  21. macrumors 68040

    entatlrg

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2009
    Location:
    Waterloo & Georgian Bay, Canada
    #21
    Big ... small ... isn't the point. Lack of 'fair play' is.

    Norway, Sweden, Denmark ... big or small doesn't government doesn't matter, fair play and treating the citizens properly does and it works, they are the happiest countries with the highest standards of living.

    Problem with our governments is lack of fair play, corruption, the rich feeding off and manipulating the less fortunate. Selfish, arrogant, ignorant bastards in government is the problem.
     
  22. macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #22
    You are missing the point. There is a reason the founding fathers chose a representational democracy over a more direct version. A large group of people (of amazingly varied educational, situational, and motivational standards) - makes an amazingly ineffectual governing body.

    What I think is lost in the last few generations, is that in a representational democracy, we trusted, as a populace, that some would just rise to service and do the duty of being our representatives in government. This is actually an efficient process.

    Unfortunately, with the rise of 24-hour media (whatever you think their bias might be), tremendous scrutiny is put on these potential elected officials, even though media ultimately has no accountability but to ratings. The era of hard news is over.

    Couple that with corporate money and lobbying power, and to be elected these days almost costs you your core values, if not your soul.

    I agree with many that government is dysfunctional these days, but why does no-one look at why? If the electorate is fickle, lazy and subseptible to media soundbites and huge corporations are financing elections - whose really to blame here?

    To be clear, I am not a fan of huge government per-se. That said, when you look at what's going on, government is the only corrective force left when dealing with corporate malfeasance and voter lethargy. I am never not amazed when someone blames government for being corrupted by money (read: corporations) and then blames government, and not the corporations.

    This is why the libertarian dream fails. An individual, or even a small community may live better without government intervention - for a time. Once you add an individual like a Rockefeller, or a Koch - whose money gives him/her more influence than his singular personage deserves - then without government intervention - we're screwed.
     
  23. macrumors 65816

    citizenzen

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #23
    So ... well ... said.
     
  24. macrumors 6502a

    NewishMacGuy

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2007
    #24
    I get the reason why they chose a republic instead of a pure democracy - to limit the tyranny of the mob - but my point is that they chose a severely limited republic and then tried to place constraints around its ability to grow out of control. I think most of them (with the notable exception of Hamilton who basically wanted another monarchy/oligarchy) would be appalled at how those constraints have been debased and breached.

    Remember that only governments hold the legal power of force (and violent force at that). Without the power of government to force me, big business holds no power over me. If I don't like their services, I don't trade with them. And if I think I can provide better services more efficiently I am free to compete with them in the absence of big government regulation.

    Unfortunately I have no such option when it comes to government dictat.

    Said another way powerful government in no way protects me from Koch and Rockefeller - rather it forces me to trade with them when I otherwise might not.

    >
     
  25. macrumors 603

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #25
    Sounds strangely like the Obamacare mandate...
     

Share This Page