NationStates Jolt Archive

You know, I always hear about people who are against small government, however, I never actually met one. Why would anyone be against small government? Smaller government mean less taxes, less powers to intrude on your private life. If government get cut down in size, the part that get cut out will either go to the private sector or be done away with. When the prtion does go to the private sector, it creates jobs. Citizens will have more control over their own lives. All in all, everyone would be happy, except for the politicans, but no one cares about them. So, who can honestly be against small government?

Why does small government mean less taxes or less power? Or am I misunderstanding the term small government?

Why does small government mean less taxes or less power? Or am I misunderstanding the term small government?

Because the less departments, the less branches that a government has, means that it doesn't have to spend as much money, so they can lower their budget, thus lowering taxes. A smaller government equal less power because without those extra branches and departments they are restricted.

Define small government, smaller in sheer numbers? in authority? or in military? How would the balance of social needs and state safety be met? Who would run it and how would that be determined? Just a few questions to start with.

Well, the "big government" vs "small government" thing is really quite silly.

The real debate is here:
Economic Freedom is something the liberals approve of and the commies/leftists etc don't. They believe that a bigger government in the economy will lead to less inequality and greater happiness.

Social Freedom is something the liberals approve of and the conservatives don't. They believe a bigger government in social matters will prevent more people from living in a way they disapprove of and ultimately have less people go to hell.

So liberalism is the only consistent way of thought (apart from real totalitarianism of course, for an argument regarding that, read this (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html)), leftist ideas are less consistent but still mostly rational, while conservatism is an irrational convulsion of the lower brain functions that should land people in the loony bin.

Define small government, smaller in sheer numbers? in authority? or in military? How would the balance of social needs and state safety be met? Who would run it and how would that be determined? Just a few questions to start with.

I mean small as in how much authority it has. How many department and branches it has, etc. etc.

I mean small as in how much authority it has. How many department and branches it has, etc. etc.

But what branches would you cut, social services, military? What would you give up? How would the people have their say or interact with said government?

I mean small as in how much authority it has. How many department and branches it has, etc. etc.
Which are you talking about? Authority or structure or number of desks?

But what branches would you cut, social services, military? What would you give up? How would the people have their say or interact with said government?

I would cut for once, Homeland Security, I would basically cut everything except the militatry, and peace keeping forces at home (IE Police, fire etc.) Everything else can go to private company. The Congress, Executive, and Judicals will still be in place, but they'll have smaller roles.

Which are you talking about? Authority or structure or number of desks?

both.

I would cut for once, Homeland Security, I would basically cut everything except the militatry, and peace keeping forces at home (IE Police, fire etc.) Everything else can go to private company. The Congress, Executive, and Judicals will still be in place, but they'll have smaller roles.

That would take away much of the peoples voice out of government.
Where would privatizing things such as schools and public works get us?
Would this mean more power for the military and police?

I would cut for once, Homeland Security, I would basically cut everything except the militatry, and peace keeping forces at home (IE Police, fire etc.) Everything else can go to private company. The Congress, Executive, and Judicals will still be in place, but they'll have smaller roles.
So basically get rid of anything that protects the little guy against the big guy.

This is what I never understand. Why do small government advocates never advocate the abolition of that gluttonous consumer of taxpayers money - the military?

You know, I always hear about people who are against small government, however, I never actually met one.

funny, i have the opposite problem. i always hear about people who are in favor of small government, but the vast majority of the ones i actually encounter always seem to be calling for a police state and strict regimentation of most aspects of society.

I am in favor of a weaker state as long as it is accompanied by a weaker "private sector."

funny, i have the opposite problem. i always hear about people who are in favor of small government, but the vast majority of the ones i actually encounter always seem to be calling for a police state and strict regimentation of most aspects of society.
Thus,
conservatism is an irrational convulsion of the lower brain functions that should land people in the loony bin.

I am in favor of a weaker state as long as it is accompanied by a weaker "private sector."

Why would you want a weak private sector? The Private Sector is what drives our Economy.

funny, i have the opposite problem. i always hear about people who are in favor of small government, but the vast majority of the ones i actually encounter always seem to be calling for a police state and strict regimentation of most aspects of society.

I actually think a bigger government would lead us to a police state. I mean look at the government the US have now. WE have our own government spying on us. The only way to cure that is to restrict the powers, and to restrict the size of the government.

I am in favor of a weaker state as long as it is accompanied by a weaker "private sector."
Unfortunately, small government => Corporate rule => oligarchy.

Which is why I like compay law. :cool:

I am deifnetly pro-small governement, in the anarchist sense.

But in a capitalist democrcy like America, I like a governemnt who rules with an iron fist over corporations with lots of regulations to make sure they just stay as corporations, not conglomerate bureaucracies who delve into politics and the such like they currently are.

But for personal lives, I think the governemnt should only intervene when someone elses life is put at risk. Liek if your next door neighbor is buidling a bomb to kill millions of innocents, then I think the govt should eb able to intervene, but they shouldn't have a say in whether people can fuck before marriage or not.

Why would you want a weak private sector? The Private Sector is what drives our Economy.

he wants a different economy entirely

he wants a different economy entirely

What kind?

I want an economy that is driven by private industry, and by the people.

I actually think a bigger government would lead us to a police state. I mean look at the government the US have now. WE have our own government spying on us.

who's talking about "leading to"? i'm talking about calling for. see for example the current rulers of the united states and their supporters.

You have to draw a line, really. The government provides benefits that the private sector can't, and they have powers to regulate and protect the private sector from market failures and environmental abuses; at the same time, however, large government can commit a lot of abuses and restrict freedoms that cannot occur in a small tightly regulated government.

What kind?

I want an economy that is driven by private industry, and by the people.
With CEOs instead of senators?

Why would you want a weak private sector? The Private Sector is what drives our Economy.

But taken to the extreme it can influence government. (Take oil to our current government as an example) with a "small government" the "private sector" would have that much more power, especially if they are taking over government programs. The balance of power would be precarious.

Why would you want a weak private sector? The Private Sector is what drives our Economy.

Because I am in favor of public decisions being under the control of the public and not under the control of the owners of the means of production (or any other voice that is not the voice of the people, which includes the state.) Anything else is tyranny.

who's talking about "leading to"? i'm talking about calling for. see for example the current rulers of the united states and their supporters.

Thus, is why we need to cut down on government's power and government's authority and physical size. The smaller the government is, the less power they have over our lives.

Because I am in favor of public decisions being under the control of the public and not under the control of the owners of the means of production (or any other voice that is not the voice of the people, which includes the state.) Anything else is tyranny.

Who do you think controls the prices? Who do you think controls what is produced, and what's not? Who do you think really controls the Private Sector? I'll give you a hint, it's not the CEOs.

I want an economy that is driven by private industry, and by the people.

I want an economy that is driven by the people (ALL the people), which means that it is not driven by private industry.

I want an economy that is driven by the people (ALL the people), which means that it is not driven by private industry.

But the people drive the Private Industry. You as a person has the most powerful weapon in the Private Industry, your wallet.

Who do you think controls the prices? Who do you think controls what is produced, and what's not? Who do you think really controls the Private Sector? I'll give you a hint, it's not the CEOs.
Tell us.

Tell us.

The Consumers. The people, you, me, your Aunt Betty! It's the Consumer that drives the private sector.

But the people drive the Private Industry. You as a person has the most powerful weapon in the Private Industry, your wallet.
Pea guns vs tanks?

The Consumers. The people, you, me, your Aunt Betty! It's the Consumer that drives the private sector.
Illusion.

Military invasions aren't the only thing a country has to worry about. Monopolization is just as dangerous. Those corporations aren't out there to protect your rights, they're out there to make a profit for their shareholders, by whatever means available. It would essentially evolve into a corporate police state or some form thereof if the current government ceased to enforce anti-trust laws.

Pea guns vs tanks?
I'd suggest molotovs, but they own all the petrol.

Illusion.

Take an economic class, take two, then get back to me.

Military invasions aren't the only thing a country has to worry about. Monopolization is just as dangerous. Those corporations aren't out there to protect your rights, they're out there to make a profit for their shareholders, by whatever means necessary. It would essentially evolve into a corporate police state or some form thereof if the current government ceased to enforce anti-trust laws.
Nah, the Consumers will revolt:D

Thus, is why we need to cut down on government's power and government's authority and physical size. The smaller the government is, the less power they have over our lives.

true. but it seems that voting for people who say "we're the party of small government" has a less than stellar track record in recent history. not to mention the damaged credibility of all those millions of people who spent years running around complaining about oppressive large gub'mint, who now are the very same people demanding the above mentioned police state.

Who do you think controls the prices? Who do you think controls what is produced, and what's not? Who do you think really controls the Private Sector? I'll give you a hint, it's not the CEOs.

Oh, yes, the glorious democracy of the market. One dollar, one vote - how egalitarian.

But anyway, you are missing the point; accountability through the market is limited in scope, it cannot change the fact that our economy is dominated by the class which has principal ownership and control over the means of production, and that they use this domination to benefit themselves.

The prime motive of a corporation, by law, is to bring a profit to its shareholders - whatever the costs to workers and consumers.

true. but it seems that voting for people who say "we're the party of small government" has a less than stellar track record in recent history. not to mention the damaged credibility of all those millions of people who spent years running around complaining about oppressive large gub'mint, who now are the very same people demanding the above mentioned police state.

I say we're already in a police state, what with Homeland Security, the spying on our phones, and The Patriot Act etc.

Take an economic class, take two, then get back to me.
You think consumers have power? Shareholder rule? Nice theory, but shareholders are just a mob. As predictable and easy to manipulate as water.

But the people drive the Private Industry. You as a person has the most powerful weapon in the Private Industry, your wallet.

and guess who has nearly all the weapons:



http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/Courses/so11/stratification/Wealth2001.gif

and guess who has nearly all the weapons:



http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/Courses/so11/stratification/Wealth2001.gif

Yea, but that's only 1% of the population.

Let's do the math

33.4

Vs.

25.8
12.3
12.9
11.3
3.9
0.3
__________
66.5

'nuff said.

I want an economy that is driven by the people (ALL the people), which means that it is not driven by private industry.

That's a pipe dream. The best you can do on that front is to have a free market where everyone gets a say based on their ability to produce and consume.

If you let government do it, thn the decisions are all left in the hands of bureaucrats, and bureaucrats have no interest in making anyone's life better. The purpose of bureaucray is to grow.

and guess who has nearly all the weapons:



http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/Courses/so11/stratification/Wealth2001.gif

And guess who sits on congress ect.

If you let government do it, thn the decisions are all left in the hands of bureaucrats, and bureaucrats have no interest in making anyone's life better. The purpose of bureaucray is to grow.

Next time, read. It is not very difficult.

I am in favor of a weaker state as long as it is accompanied by a weaker "private sector."

Edit: And, just in case that wasn't clear enough:

Because I am in favor of public decisions being under the control of the public and not under the control of the owners of the means of production (or any other voice that is not the voice of the people, which includes the state.) Anything else is tyranny.

Yea, but that's only 1% of the population.

Let's do the math

33.4

Vs.

25.8
12.3
12.9
11.3
3.9
0.3
__________
66.5

'nuff said.
The sole owner of 33.4 % of stock in any company has actual power. He doesn´t have to lean very heavily on the others to get majority for any decision he wants.

Nah, the Consumers will revolt:D

Not when their livelihood or very life is at stake. Talk about wage slavery. Unions would of course be banned, and their members imprisoned or quietly ushered behind a building and shot.

Not when their livelihood or very life is at stake. Talk about wage slavery. Unions would of course be banned, and their members imprisoned or quietly ushered behind a building and shot.
....and raped a little afterwards, for good measure.

Yea, but that's only 1% of the population.

Let's do the math

33.4

Vs.

25.8
12.3
12.9
11.3
3.9
0.3
__________
66.5

'nuff said.

'nuff said? i think you need to think about this a bit more.


the fact of the matter is that your 'most powerful weapons' are entirely in the hands of the elite, while the rest of us are stuck sharing a single rifle.

'nuff said? i think you need to think about this a bit more.


the fact of the matter is that your 'most powerful weapons' are entirely in the hands of the elite, while the rest of us are stuck sharing a single rifle.
We could of course modify...
Let's do the math again:
33.4
25.8
_______
59.2 how many people are that, holding 59.2 percent of the power?

Vs.

12.3
12.9
11.3
3.9
0.3
__________
40.8 and how many here?

One dollar, one vote?

We could of course modify...
Let's do the math again:
33.4
25.8
_______
59.2 how many people are that, holding 59.2 percent of the power?

Vs.

12.3
12.9
11.3
3.9
0.3
__________
40.8 and how many here?

One dollar, one vote?

and, of course, the next 5% of the top 10% are not exactly going to come down against greater benefits for the elite. nor are the next 5 or 10%.

no matter how you cut it, it's fucking awful.

and, of course, the next 5% of the top 10% are not exactly going to come down against greater benefits for the elite. nor are the next 5 or 10%.

no matter how you cut it, it's fucking awful.
You posted the graph, got a similar one that shows what percentage of people hold 50% of wealth?

You posted the graph, got a similar one that shows what percentage of people hold 50% of wealth?

not handy

but based on the curve, it'd be damn close to 3%

You know, I always hear about people who are against small government, however, I never actually met one. Why would anyone be against small government? Smaller government mean less taxes, less powers to intrude on your private life. If government get cut down in size, the part that get cut out will either go to the private sector or be done away with. When the prtion does go to the private sector, it creates jobs. Citizens will have more control over their own lives. All in all, everyone would be happy, except for the politicans, but no one cares about them. So, who can honestly be against small government?

Everybody crying out for yet another law or yet another project or for the government to DO something about high gas prices or the problem du jour. Everyone howling for yet another social engineering experiment to right some wrong done to them. Every swingin dick who says "there oughta be a law" without thinking about it. Everyone who is or plans on being on public assistance. Every college student who takes a government loan for their education. Everyone who wants space exploration and who thinks FEMA should do more. Everyone who wants to send out more foreign aid to regions with people in trouble. Everyone who likes interstate freeways without tolls. Everybody who likes a strong military. Everyone who uses hydroelectric power or water from the dams or who lives in the floodplains of dammed rivers. Everybody who wants more police or prisons or public transport.

In short most people want big government. They dont want it as such, they may not even know they want it, but they want what only big government provides.

"That government which governs least, governs best" -Thomas Jefferson-

A smaller government equal less power because without those extra branches and departments they are restricted.

That, or they lose the ability to check the main branch. Fascist governnments typically aren't that big, but they have immense restrictive powers.

Most of what people think of how taxes can be reduced never works. Here's my main point. In a recent study performed by a senior economist during the Reagan administration, it was discovered that in governments that cut taxes in fact spend more money than those that don't. This argument certainly doesn't take down the idea that a large government taxes more, but it's something to think about.

"That government which governs least, governs best" -Thomas Jefferson-

exactly!

Here's my main point. In a recent study performed by a senior economist during the Reagan administration, it was discovered that in governments that cut taxes in fact spend more money than those that don't. This argument certainly doesn't take down the idea that a large government taxes more, but it's something to think about.

It is quite well known that lower rates (down to a point) bring in greater revenue. The Reagan Administration also borrowed immensily.

That, or they lose the ability to check the main branch. Fascist governnments typically aren't that big, but they have immense restrictive powers.

I think you're getting confused between branches of government (as in Legislative, Judicial, and Executive), and agencies or departments of government (Defence, etc.)


The real question is over what functions government undertakes. The only legitimate function of government is the protection of liberty. This means the provision of armed forces, police, and courts.

You know...reading this makes me so angry I either wanna smash my PC or break down and cry. I voted for this.

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,415490,00.html
The tax hikes agreed by Merkel and her cabinet will cost consumers more than €100 billion in the next three years. Most economists are predicting that the increases will hurt Germany's already weak economic growth.

Virtually every day the machine of government churns out new reform ideas which are largely based on the same principle -- that the welfare system should be rescued not through fundamental structural reform, but through never-ending cash injections. At the same time the government is displaying an astounding degree of creativity in spending billions of euros it doesn't have. The government's "growth package" aimed at boosting employment through investment in central growth areas will cost €25 billion.

There's an eerie calm on the reform front. So far the voters, tired of the loud and unsuccessful reform battles of the previous government, are thanking Merkel. "Don't worry...Be happy," is how "Newsweek" summed Germany's curious mood these days, adding: "Germans seem to prefer inaction from their not-so-new chancellor."

Strangely, no one is stressing the need for reforms more insistently than Merkel herself. She knows the disastrous state of the welfare system's coffers, and that the worst financial strains have yet to come in the next few years when the baby boom generation starts retiring and an ever decreasing number of employees has to pay for a growing army of retirees.

Even now, only 39 percent of Germans derive their income from employment, according to official statistics. The federal budget is almost totally used up paying for pensions, unemployment benefit, interest on debt and the military. Every cent spent on top of that, say on road construction, research or education is funded through debt. Germany is wasting its future.

...

Merkel's government has mutated to a coalition of the unwilling. The measures they do manage to agree on are watered-down versions of original plans, and usually involve distributing money they haven't got, only to get it back elsewhere through new taxes. Last week's agreement on parental benefits coupled with the imposition of a new "wealth tax" (!!!!!!!!!) are a prime example of this. The original idea was to pay working mothers-to-be 67 percent of their salary for a year to encourage women with careers to have children.

But after weeks of debate within the coalition, an agreement was reached to pay parent benefit to all mothers, including those who don't have jobs and are registered as long-term unemployed.

Under the new wealth tax coming into force in 2007, people earning over €250,000 per year (over €500,000 if they're married) will face a three point income tax hike to 45% -- a key demand of the SPD. During the election campaign ahead of last September's election, the CDU had pledged to be "honest" to voters and said it would raise sales tax by two points to shore up government finances. The SPD bitterly opposed what it called the "Merkel tax". After the election, the two parties sat together and agreed a three-point value-added tax on almost all purchases.

That is what f*cking big government has given us. How am I supposed to go home like this? :(

Even now, only 39 percent of Germans derive their income from employment

This is a disaster. If most of the people derive wealth from the government, then they'll never agree to dismantle it.

Because I am in favor of public decisions being under the control of the public and not under the control of the owners of the means of production (or any other voice that is not the voice of the people, which includes the state.) Anything else is tyranny.

So who makes decisions? Consensus?

If I, as the owner of the means of production, don't get to decide how my means of production are employed, why would I bother ever developing the means of production? I'd get no benefit from it.

Your solution requires vastly reduced production. It's basically strict Marxism.

This is a disaster. If most of the people derive wealth from the government, then they'll never agree to dismantle it.
If the majority of people are happy and doing well, why does it matter?


Because I am in favor of public decisions being under the control of the public and not under the control of the owners of the means of production (or any other voice that is not the voice of the people, which includes the state.) Anything else is tyranny

So who makes decisions? Consensus?

If I, as the owner of the means of production, don't get to decide how my means of production are employed, why would I bother ever developing the means of production? I'd get no benefit from it.

I've bolded the part you seem to have missed.