CDZ Isn't smaller governance better?

[K9Buck]

We hear about how Denmark, Sweden, etc. are the happiest nations. I don't know if that's true or not but, they are smaller populations. Is it possible that they do well because they are smaller?

For that matter, the smaller and closer to home is our governance, is it not better?

From what I can gather, the left typically likes to consolidate huge swathes of people and govern them from one, centralized government. But, as far as I can tell, government is better when it's smaller and more localized.

What say you?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

We hear about how Denmark, Sweden, etc. are the happiest nations. I don't know if that's true or not but, they are smaller populations. Is it possible that they do well because they are smaller?

For that matter, the smaller and closer to home is our governance, is it not better?

From what I can gather, the left typically likes to consolidate huge swathes of people and govern them from one, centralized government. But, as far as I can tell, government is better when it's smaller and more localized.

What say you?

It is for exactly that reason that the great men who founded this nation wisely set it up with a fairly minimal central government, leaving the vast majority of governance to states or localities.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

We hear about how Denmark, Sweden, etc. are the happiest nations. I don't know if that's true or not but, they are smaller populations. Is it possible that they do well because they are smaller?

Well, may I suggest we ask them WHY they are happy?

Denmark:
Salie asked, “How can we be as happy as you guys?”

“I think it’s the welfare state,” Wiking replied. “It is focusing on reducing extreme unhappiness, and investing in public goods that create quality of life for all.”

“If you asks Danes, ‘Are you happily paying your tax?’ Eight out of ten will say, ‘Yes, to some degree I’m happily paying my tax,’” Wiking said. “And I think that’s because people are aware of the huge benefits they get in terms of quality of life.”

“Basically, social mobility is high because the obstacles are very, very low,” he said. “You’re really given the basics for a good, healthy, productive life.”

“Family life balance is phenomenally better than it would be back in the U.S.,” she told Salie. “The Danes, they leave work at five o’clock and they’re home for dinner by 5:30, so Richard is home for dinner every single night. We both agree that it’s probably the best decision that we’ve made as a family.”

 

[cnm]

Well, may I suggest we ask them WHY they are happy?

Dude. Please. This is hardly the place for reality.

 

[cnm]

It is for exactly that reason that the great men who founded this nation wisely set it up with a fairly minimal central government, leaving the vast majority of governance to states or localities.

So after the constitution of the first confederation didn't bestow enough power on the federal government you had to rewrite the constitution to form a more perfect union and then you had to have a civil war to fix those mistakes.

Yeah, wise.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

We hear about how Denmark, Sweden, etc. are the happiest nations. I don't know if that's true or not but, they are smaller populations. Is it possible that they do well because they are smaller?

For that matter, the smaller and closer to home is our governance, is it not better?

From what I can gather, the left typically likes to consolidate huge swathes of people and govern them from one, centralized government. But, as far as I can tell, government is better when it's smaller and more localized.

What say you?

“…the left typically likes to consolidate huge swathes of people and govern them from one, centralized government.”

Incorrect.

Liberals are pragmatists, they believe the best government is government that works best, regardless its size: local governments are best suited to serve the needs of the people of local jurisdictions; a larger national government is best suited to address foreign relations, provide for the national defense, and to act as a valuable resource for smaller local governments.

Consequently, the thread premise fails as a false dilemma fallacy, as neither larger government nor smaller government is ‘better.’

 

[K9Buck]

We hear about how Denmark, Sweden, etc. are the happiest nations. I don't know if that's true or not but, they are smaller populations. Is it possible that they do well because they are smaller?

For that matter, the smaller and closer to home is our governance, is it not better?

From what I can gather, the left typically likes to consolidate huge swathes of people and govern them from one, centralized government. But, as far as I can tell, government is better when it's smaller and more localized.

What say you?

“…the left typically likes to consolidate huge swathes of people and govern them from one, centralized government.”

Incorrect.

Liberals are pragmatists, they believe the best government is government that works best, regardless its size: local governments are best suited to serve the needs of the people of local jurisdictions; a larger national government is best suited to address foreign relations, provide for the national defense, and to act as a valuable resource for smaller local governments.

Consequently, the thread premise fails as a false dilemma fallacy, as neither larger government nor smaller government is ‘better.’

The DoED is one example of leftist ideology on governance. I think education would be better if this federal bureaucracy did not exist. Can you demonstrate how federalizing education is BETTER than it was before?

 

[K9Buck]

I thought the "clean debate zone" was supposed to be free of idiotic rhetoric and flaming.

 

[fncceo]

How you feel on this issue is based on which of these statements you believe is most true ...

1. Government causes more problems than it solves

Or

2. Government solves more problems than it creates.

 

[Mousterian]

Of course, Somalia has 'small government', and I don't think it's working for them.

 

[gipper]

We hear about how Denmark, Sweden, etc. are the happiest nations. I don't know if that's true or not but, they are smaller populations. Is it possible that they do well because they are smaller?

For that matter, the smaller and closer to home is our governance, is it not better?

From what I can gather, the left typically likes to consolidate huge swathes of people and govern them from one, centralized government. But, as far as I can tell, government is better when it's smaller and more localized.

What say you?

“…the left typically likes to consolidate huge swathes of people and govern them from one, centralized government.”

Incorrect.

Liberals are pragmatists, they believe the best government is government that works best, regardless its size: local governments are best suited to serve the needs of the people of local jurisdictions; a larger national government is best suited to address foreign relations, provide for the national defense, and to act as a valuable resource for smaller local governments.

Consequently, the thread premise fails as a false dilemma fallacy, as neither larger government nor smaller government is ‘better.’

The best government is no government. Government no matter its size always sucks. That said, something as dangerous and unjust as government, is best when small. Sort of like the best of the worst. Akin to being shot by a .22, rather than a .45.

 

[usmbguest5318]

We hear about how Denmark, Sweden, etc. are the happiest nations. I don't know if that's true or not but, they are smaller populations. Is it possible that they do well because they are smaller?

For that matter, the smaller and closer to home is our governance, is it not better?

From what I can gather, the left typically likes to consolidate huge swathes of people and govern them from one, centralized government. But, as far as I can tell, government is better when it's smaller and more localized.

What say you?

What say you?

To the general notion that for a community of free thinking and behaving people functioning under some sort of body of guiding rules/law and principles that exist as a framework for ensuring deleterious behavior is adequately dissuaded and penalized when necessary, size alone, namely a small quantity of community members, is causal to community members happiness, I say "no." One need only look at the dissolution rate of smallest possible community, that of folks who members of voluntarily created cohabitating pairbonds to see that of no materiality is the the quantity of individuals functioning under an ostensibly common set of guidelines.

We hear about how Denmark, Sweden, etc. are the happiest nations. I don't know if that's true or not but, they are smaller populations. Is it possible that they do well because they are smaller?

No.

For that matter, the smaller and closer to home is our governance, is it not better?

No.

From what I can gather, the left typically likes to consolidate huge swathes of people and govern them from one, centralized government.

The question of a community's collective happiness, and that of the individuals within the community, is not answerable in terms of politics but rather in terms of human nature. One's politics are a symptom of their nature, not the other way round. Personhood precedes and predates political persuasion.

Your ascription of what you construe to be an act of "the left" informs me that you aren't ready (perhaps even able) to consider the question you posed with anything other than the jaundiced eye of politics -- not political science, but politics -- rather than any of the the findings and analytical approaches offered by any of the rational disciplines that one can use to evaluate the matter of happiness within communities. What are some of those disciplines? Any of the social sciences -- economics, political science, cultural anthropology, psychology, sociology, communication science, etc. -- all of which avail themselves of history and empiricism.

It's unfortunate that you've imbued your conclusion with partisanship for the topic itself is an interesting enough one. Insofar as you have done so, despite the very existence of the U.S. being palpable evidence that consolidation of "huge swathes of people and [governing] them from one, centralized government" is something that both the left and the right saw and have continued to see as a fitting and apt way to develop and manage a polity, I not going to bother expounding further.

 

[K9Buck]

The best government is no government.

Well, no government would pretty much mean no nation. So, no, I can't get behind that idea.

 

[Meathead]

The more people feel they have in common with their fellow countrymen, the better large government functions. With identity politics and what we today call diversity, the less effective and popular it is.

It is that simple.

 

[K9Buck]

We hear about how Denmark, Sweden, etc. are the happiest nations. I don't know if that's true or not but, they are smaller populations. Is it possible that they do well because they are smaller?

Well, may I suggest we ask them WHY they are happy?

Denmark:
Salie asked, “How can we be as happy as you guys?”

“I think it’s the welfare state,” Wiking replied. “It is focusing on reducing extreme unhappiness, and investing in public goods that create quality of life for all.”

“If you asks Danes, ‘Are you happily paying your tax?’ Eight out of ten will say, ‘Yes, to some degree I’m happily paying my tax,’” Wiking said. “And I think that’s because people are aware of the huge benefits they get in terms of quality of life.”

“Basically, social mobility is high because the obstacles are very, very low,” he said. “You’re really given the basics for a good, healthy, productive life.”

“Family life balance is phenomenally better than it would be back in the U.S.,” she told Salie. “The Danes, they leave work at five o’clock and they’re home for dinner by 5:30, so Richard is home for dinner every single night. We both agree that it’s probably the best decision that we’ve made as a family.”

We hear about how Denmark, Sweden, etc. are the happiest nations. I don't know if that's true or not but, they are smaller populations. Is it possible that they do well because they are smaller?

For that matter, the smaller and closer to home is our governance, is it not better?

From what I can gather, the left typically likes to consolidate huge swathes of people and govern them from one, centralized government. But, as far as I can tell, government is better when it's smaller and more localized.

What say you?

What say you?

To the general notion that for a community of free thinking and behaving people functioning under some sort of body of guiding rules/law and principles that exist as a framework for ensuring deleterious behavior is adequately dissuaded and penalized when necessary, size alone, namely a small quantity of community members, is causal to community members happiness, I say "no." One need only look at the dissolution rate of smallest possible community, that of folks who members of voluntarily created cohabitating pairbonds to see that of no materiality is the the quantity of individuals functioning under an ostensibly common set of guidelines.

We hear about how Denmark, Sweden, etc. are the happiest nations. I don't know if that's true or not but, they are smaller populations. Is it possible that they do well because they are smaller?

No.

For that matter, the smaller and closer to home is our governance, is it not better?

No.

From what I can gather, the left typically likes to consolidate huge swathes of people and govern them from one, centralized government.

The question of a community's collective happiness, and that of the individuals within the community, is not answerable in terms of politics but rather in terms of human nature. One's politics are a symptom of their nature, not the other way round. Personhood precedes and predates political persuasion.

Your ascription of what you construe to be an act of "the left" informs me that you aren't ready (perhaps even able) to consider the question you posed with anything other than the jaundiced eye of politics -- not political science, but politics -- rather than any of the the findings and analytical approaches offered by any of the rational disciplines that one can use to evaluate the matter of happiness within communities. What are some of those disciplines? Any of the social sciences -- economics, political science, cultural anthropology, psychology, sociology, communication science, etc. -- all of which avail themselves of history and empiricism.

It's unfortunate that you've imbued your conclusion with partisanship for the topic itself is an interesting enough one. Insofar as you have done so, despite the very existence of the U.S. being palpable evidence that consolidation of "huge swathes of people and [governing] them from one, centralized government" is something that both the left and the right saw and have continued to see as a fitting and apt way to develop and manage a polity, I not going to bother expounding further.

I didn't attack the left, I simply noted that it is typically the left that gravitates toward large, centralized, government bureaucracies. Take the Department of Education, as an example.

Speaking of the DoED, how has nationalizing the education system improved the education of American children? I'm going to venture a guess that it hasn't. What if the DoED didn't exist and the funds used to fund that bureaucracy were instead spent at local school districts? This is just one example of having a large, centralized government apparatus as opposed to having smaller, local governance.

Additionally and, with regard to your mention of human nature, I believe we get better representation and better governance when we're dealing with people who are, ideally, in our and members of our community. They can have a better pulse for the state of said community and, hopefully, govern accordingly.

For that matter, does anyone think their congressional are more in touch with their districts than state representatives for the same locale? I don't. Does anyone believe that Nancy Pelosi or Paul Ryan are more in touch with their hometown communities than the people who are actually there every day? Not me.

 

[Tehon]

We hear about how Denmark, Sweden, etc. are the happiest nations. I don't know if that's true or not but, they are smaller populations. Is it possible that they do well because they are smaller?

For that matter, the smaller and closer to home is our governance, is it not better?

From what I can gather, the left typically likes to consolidate huge swathes of people and govern them from one, centralized government. But, as far as I can tell, government is better when it's smaller and more localized.

What say you?

“…the left typically likes to consolidate huge swathes of people and govern them from one, centralized government.”

Incorrect.

Liberals are pragmatists, they believe the best government is government that works best, regardless its size: local governments are best suited to serve the needs of the people of local jurisdictions; a larger national government is best suited to address foreign relations, provide for the national defense, and to act as a valuable resource for smaller local governments.

Consequently, the thread premise fails as a false dilemma fallacy, as neither larger government nor smaller government is ‘better.’

The DoED is one example of leftist ideology on governance. I think education would be better if this federal bureaucracy did not exist. Can you demonstrate how federalizing education is BETTER than it was before?

It must really chap your ass that GW increased the DoED budget by 14 billion dollars.

We have a fairly decentralized education system comparatively speaking.

Your philosophy of smaller governance doesn't really translate to real world examples.

Federal Role in Education

 

[K9Buck]

We hear about how Denmark, Sweden, etc. are the happiest nations. I don't know if that's true or not but, they are smaller populations. Is it possible that they do well because they are smaller?

For that matter, the smaller and closer to home is our governance, is it not better?

From what I can gather, the left typically likes to consolidate huge swathes of people and govern them from one, centralized government. But, as far as I can tell, government is better when it's smaller and more localized.

What say you?

“…the left typically likes to consolidate huge swathes of people and govern them from one, centralized government.”

Incorrect.

Liberals are pragmatists, they believe the best government is government that works best, regardless its size: local governments are best suited to serve the needs of the people of local jurisdictions; a larger national government is best suited to address foreign relations, provide for the national defense, and to act as a valuable resource for smaller local governments.

Consequently, the thread premise fails as a false dilemma fallacy, as neither larger government nor smaller government is ‘better.’

The DoED is one example of leftist ideology on governance. I think education would be better if this federal bureaucracy did not exist. Can you demonstrate how federalizing education is BETTER than it was before?

It must really chap your ass that GW increased the DoED budget by 14 billion dollars.

We have a fairly decentralized education system comparatively speaking.

Your philosophy of smaller governance doesn't really translate to real world examples.

Federal Role in Education

It is your view that it's better to send money to D.C. to subsidize the DoED than it is to keep those funds in local districts? If so, how so?

 

[Tehon]

We hear about how Denmark, Sweden, etc. are the happiest nations. I don't know if that's true or not but, they are smaller populations. Is it possible that they do well because they are smaller?

For that matter, the smaller and closer to home is our governance, is it not better?

From what I can gather, the left typically likes to consolidate huge swathes of people and govern them from one, centralized government. But, as far as I can tell, government is better when it's smaller and more localized.

What say you?

“…the left typically likes to consolidate huge swathes of people and govern them from one, centralized government.”

Incorrect.

Liberals are pragmatists, they believe the best government is government that works best, regardless its size: local governments are best suited to serve the needs of the people of local jurisdictions; a larger national government is best suited to address foreign relations, provide for the national defense, and to act as a valuable resource for smaller local governments.

Consequently, the thread premise fails as a false dilemma fallacy, as neither larger government nor smaller government is ‘better.’

The DoED is one example of leftist ideology on governance. I think education would be better if this federal bureaucracy did not exist. Can you demonstrate how federalizing education is BETTER than it was before?

It must really chap your ass that GW increased the DoED budget by 14 billion dollars.

We have a fairly decentralized education system comparatively speaking.

Your philosophy of smaller governance doesn't really translate to real world examples.

Federal Role in Education

It is your view that it's better to send money to D.C. to subsidize the DoED than it is to keep those funds in local districts? If so, how so?

It is my view that it is in the national interest to ensure our youth are getting a proper education. If that requires setting up a department of government to oversee it then yes, I'm good with it.

 

[K9Buck]

We hear about how Denmark, Sweden, etc. are the happiest nations. I don't know if that's true or not but, they are smaller populations. Is it possible that they do well because they are smaller?

For that matter, the smaller and closer to home is our governance, is it not better?

From what I can gather, the left typically likes to consolidate huge swathes of people and govern them from one, centralized government. But, as far as I can tell, government is better when it's smaller and more localized.

What say you?

“…the left typically likes to consolidate huge swathes of people and govern them from one, centralized government.”

Incorrect.

Liberals are pragmatists, they believe the best government is government that works best, regardless its size: local governments are best suited to serve the needs of the people of local jurisdictions; a larger national government is best suited to address foreign relations, provide for the national defense, and to act as a valuable resource for smaller local governments.

Consequently, the thread premise fails as a false dilemma fallacy, as neither larger government nor smaller government is ‘better.’

The DoED is one example of leftist ideology on governance. I think education would be better if this federal bureaucracy did not exist. Can you demonstrate how federalizing education is BETTER than it was before?

It must really chap your ass that GW increased the DoED budget by 14 billion dollars.

We have a fairly decentralized education system comparatively speaking.

Your philosophy of smaller governance doesn't really translate to real world examples.

Federal Role in Education

It is your view that it's better to send money to D.C. to subsidize the DoED than it is to keep those funds in local districts? If so, how so?

It is my view that it is in the national interest to ensure our youth are getting a proper education. If that requires setting up a department of government to oversee it then yes, I'm good with it.

I appreciate your view, but I don't share it. The DoED should be eliminated and the money siphoned from local districts in order to subsidize an army of Washington bureaucrats can, instead, be actually spent on more teachers in classrooms, etc. I certainly haven't seen any evidence that the DoED has improved the education of our children. How much have we spent on the DoED since it was created in 1977, over $2 TRILLION? And what do we have to show for it?

Again, national governance versus local governance. Some things need national governance, education isn't one of them.

 

[BULLDOG]

How you feel on this issue is based on which of these statements you believe is most true ...

1. Government causes more problems than it solves

Or

2. Government solves more problems than it creates.

The government needs to be sized for the problem to be dealt with. If the government solves more problems than it causes, that is no reason to accept unlimited government. If it causes more problems than it solves, that is no reason to eliminate it.