Poll: Does Government do more harm than good?

Title. 10char

 

That government is a necessary evil is probably the penultimate fact of human history. "Why couldn't god have given us a more tidy excretory system?" is probably the ultimate fact, and I think the two may be inextricably linked.

 

^Beat me to it. I was about to use the exact words "necessary evil." And as such, it should only be as big as necessary. Which means it is optimal when it is minimalist.

 

It depends on the Government and its phase in the life-span of a country/society.

At one time, the American Government did waves of good for the entire world.

The Obama-Nation is a travesty.

The American Government in general has become an ever increasing burden on the common people of the United States.

-

 

Government must exist. A bunch of overly independent, freewill agents acting-out... would be like 'chaos'. There would be no 'civilization'.

- - - Updated - - -

Obama is scapegoated excessively; that excuse (the Right has been using) is about to run out.

 

This depends on the actions of those freewill agents...

Obama is Bush term III, and the current president. He is the figurehead of the entire government and like Bush before him gets the criticism that is due to congress. But thats what he ran for, figurehead. He has received no more criticism than Bush has. It's amazing to me though that "progressives" continually push for more government control but manage to criticism Bush for doing so, but try to give Obama a pass, especially when 90% of their policies match.

 

Of course.

But rather than build-up a posse every time 2 out of 10 people act-up... I'd say it's better to have a government to deal with that. You know, justice and all.

The President's power is limited by design; that's part of what we are seeing.

The other BIG part, is that we have let MONEY rule us... and that must change, or Democracy will not work properly. We already know, that they interests of corporations... don't generally match those of most Americans. We put up with corporations, because we have not figured out how to affect them as we would see fit.

But of course, time changes things and people; they won't stay the same forever. Change will come.

 

lol, good point, I do like having indoor plumbing...

and I do not think I would survive long in the wild wild west... don't think I could out draw anyone...


.

 

Isn't that what government is, the posse coming every time a few people act up? Or when the politicians decide it's in their best interest anyways.

Yet it grows with every administration... out of control NSA, IRS, EPA, FBI, CIA... all part of the administration, the executive branch ruling by fiat.

Money has always ruled man... whether its in gold, silver, or bull(*)(*)(*)(*) dollars. Man's quest for bettering his own lot in life is what drives us. It's the poor man working hard to earn a wage, the teenager slinging crack rocks on the corner to make a quick buck, or the politician in the fancy suit taking "campaign contributions" from the businessman in order to vote yes on a bill. Large government or powerful government has never changed that or will it. In fact the larger and more powerful governments have gotten the more power, wealth and money have been centralized. One party steps forward and says its going to spread it out to everyone, points to a boogey man and blames them on why it hasn't happened an asks for more power is the exact recipe on almost all governments have grown larger and more oppressive. This one is no different. Income inequality has grown even larger under Obama... but of course its the Republicans fault!

Democracy is nothing more than majority (*)(*)(*)(*)ing the minority, fine and good as long as you are in the majority. Democracy can screw for all I am concerned, I am for equal rights and protections for all individuals.

Corporations have made this world a much better place, far better than any government ever has. Are some bad, yes of course... but those generally do so with the protection of government. You blame the symptom and not the cause.

You have shown that time doesn't change things, people still naively believe giving government more power is the key to stopping others from screwing them over, when all that does is give the people in government carte blanche to screw them over.

You are right though change will come, the government will get stronger, the wealth disparity will increase, the plight of the poor will get worse. Then they will rebel against those in power, a new power will take its place promising to even things out, once it is given the power to change things by the people it will then start accumulately power for itself and abusing the people as it grows. Things change but the cycle is the same.

The only ones to truly try and break it are those who push for equal treatment and freedom for the individual... just so you know that sure is hell aren't democrats... or republicans.

 

Well, we'll continue to disagree on some points... but I think we can agree that there are more than a few problems to be solved and that no one will be 100% satisfied with any given outcome.

One thing is for sure, we should be more unified as a citizenry... because that alone would be more compelling for the politicians now serving and running for office. They'd have to DO more of what's right or expected... rather than TALKING a better game. We can disagree... but should be very careful about allowing ourselves to be 'divided'. It's time for citizens to PUSH for compromise and more centrist views overall. I think it's fair to say that extremism weakens the good things we have.

 

And what does a minimalist government look like? Police, but no social services?

 

Probably some libertarian "utopia", that looks much like what you describe above.

 

I don't think so, Johnny. Why do you neglect the large spectrum of possibilities that exist in between?

There is much governance currently assumed by DC that can better be moved back to the individual states IMO. And likewise much taken by the states that can better be managed at the local level.

The all-or-nothing assumptions are not productive. They set up a false premise that fails to explore all considerations.

 

I agree and disagree. I think that scope has to be taken into account, and I think that a "governing body" that is more closely knit with its community has done better through out history than a large sprawling mega government.

 

What difference does it make who is doing the governing? You're still being governed to the same degree.

 

No, you're not. If you were, then all state tax codes and laws would be the same.

One-size-fits-all is not aligned with any concept of individualism nor with diversity.

Nor does it lend itself to being able to adjust what needs to be adjusted----for example when a law proves to have adverse outcome there is no compelling force like citizens and businesses moving from one state to another in response to government-- that will prompt needed reform.

We have had some very disturbing outcomes to our federal drug laws, for example. Way too many nonviolent offenders in our prisons. Much money spent without achieving the desired outcome. When has federal government attended to these problems? It has not. Instead changes are being made because some states have decided to reject the federal status quo---a status quo that never should have existed in the first place.

 

I agree to an extent. But when people talk about the size of government, they aren't talking about laws or governance being too unitary. They're talking about stripping away things like social services and public education.

 

That is a myopic view. A view that needs to be dismantled and exposed as erroneous. Because when folks think that way, they are excluding a large portion of the spectrum of possibility.

And IMO that they are being led to such erroneous thinking is not an accident. Folks who are holding the centralized power are quite happy to present that the only alternative to centralized control is anarchy or other fear-mongering outcomes such as you note in your post.

They don't give us the option of looking at alternative ways, do they? Doesn't that cause you to take a pause? I think it should.

 

You're the only person in this thread talking about decentralisation. The rest just want less services.

 

And that is because of what I've already pointed out.......they have been led to believe in an either/or paradigm of possiblity.

 

If so then let us withdraw COMPLETELY from Iraq, Afghanistan, and Israel so that those people will not be burdened by the government.

Agree???

 

We could have done some good, and we'd already spent the American Lives and Treasure.

But once Obama changed U.S. to the American Apology Tour and aid and comfort to the Muslim Brotherhood pathway to the valley of eventual defeat, there has been no point in continued involvement.

President Obama has shoved Victory into the Gaping Jaws of Defeat.

-

 

Victory?

Then why did the two Bush wars cost the Republican the two general elections since he left office?

 

"The government never did ANYTHING to help anyone!"

 

Protect the basic stuff that's in the Constitution and beyond that pretty much leave everybody the hell alone. Truthfully, I'm not opposed to some social services, but you don't need nearly as many as you think you do. And the less you have, the more you'll learn to do without. You'll adapt, you'll become more independent, and you'll grow stronger. Do you realize that the only reason people think they need so many now is because they already have so many to begin with? Dependency is a soft tyranny that's introduced with a velvet glove.