CDZ Isn't smaller governance better?

[Tehon]

“…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.

We have had a governmental education department in this country since 1867. It coincided with the development of this country.

 

[K9Buck]

We have had a governmental education department in this country since 1867. It coincided with the development of this country.

Do government agencies ever become unnecessary?

In a developing nation, I can understand why it would be helpful for some direction from the top. But that's not us, at least not anymore.

So you feel that funding this department is better for our nation's school children than sending that funding to their actual school? If so, can you share how so?

 

[Tehon]

We have had a governmental education department in this country since 1867. It coincided with the development of this country.

Do government agencies ever become unnecessary?

In a developing nation, I can understand why it would be helpful for some direction from the top. But that's not us, at least not anymore.

So you feel that funding this department is better for our nation's school children than sending that funding to their actual school? If so, can you share how so?

When does a country stop developing?

 

[K9Buck]

We have had a governmental education department in this country since 1867. It coincided with the development of this country.

Do government agencies ever become unnecessary?

In a developing nation, I can understand why it would be helpful for some direction from the top. But that's not us, at least not anymore.

So you feel that funding this department is better for our nation's school children than sending that funding to their actual school? If so, can you share how so?

When does a country stop developing?

I take it you don't want to answer my questions.

 

[Votto]

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?

Yes, which is why the EU is a failure.

 

[Votto]

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.’

A government that works better? What does that mean?

Does a government that produces a $20 trillion plus debt, the most in human history, work better?

Does a government that is unable to secure its borders and treats illegals better than it's own citizens work better?

Does a government that has centralized power to the point that every election cycle, half the country wants to secede work better?

Why not let conservative stats and liberal states run their own affairs. Then step back and see which ones work the best so that Americans can make a viable choice as to what kind of governance they want based on actual results rather than mindless rhetoric and political ideology?

Then again, that would be the end of the line for the left wing, wouldn't it. They don't want to compete, they just want power.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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?

Yes, it would be great if all nations were of a limited size and nations were able to avoid war due to lots of nations having the right way of thinking.

China, the US and Russia are the biggest problems in the world right now. They're large and they have lots of money and they use their power to bully. I'm hoping the EU doesn't end up like that.

 

[Moonglow]

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?

No such dog..

 

[Votto]

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?

Yes, it would be great if all nations were of a limited size and nations were able to avoid war due to lots of nations having the right way of thinking.

China, the US and Russia are the biggest problems in the world right now. They're large and they have lots of money and they use their power to bully. I'm hoping the EU doesn't end up like that.

Power = corruption.

You are fooling yourself if you think there are any exceptions to that rule.

Large centralized governments are war and debt machines. The US was steered in that direction by Presidents Wilson and FDR in order to fight off the centralized war machines in Europe helped create a centralized government in the US. But as the saying goes, "Be careful in not becoming what you are fighting".

 

[gipper]

The best government is no government.

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

Why do you want politicians and government bureaucrats who are essentially criminals, telling you what you can and can’t do?

 

[Flash]

Democracy becomes oppressive when 51% of the people find out that they can use the power of the government to steal from the other 49%.

Big government becomes the instrument of that thievery.

The best way to stop the thievery is to defund the government down to only the basic necessities. Like defense, courts, police, etc. We need to stop all transfers of moeny from those that earn it to those that didn't earn it. No more welfare, bailouts, entitlements or subsidies.

 

[Votto]

The best government is no government.

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

Why do you want politicians and government bureaucrats who are essentially criminals, telling you what you can and can’t do?

This reminds me of a James Madison quote.

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."

Left wingers simply reject this critique and think that those in government are really angels.

 

[gipper]

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.

GOVERNMENT CAUSES PROBLEMS...PERIOD.

 

[Votto]

Democracy becomes oppressive when 51% of the people find out that they can use the power of the government to steal from the other 49%.

Big government becomes the instrument of that thievery.

The best way to stop the thievery is to defund the government down to only the basic necessities. Like defense, courts, police, etc. We need to stop all transfers of moeny from those that earn it to those that didn't earn it. No more welfare, bailouts, entitlements or subsidies.

The only hope in taming the beast is the Article V movement.

Only if states rise up and amend the constitution to try and create some sort of balanced budget amendment can spending be tamed in a civil manner. Congress will never relinquish the power of unlimited funds via the Fed and taxation.

The only other option will be to let the government go over the fiscal cliff, in which either Russia or China will then fill the void.

 

[gipper]

The best government is no government.

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

Why do you want politicians and government bureaucrats who are essentially criminals, telling you what you can and can’t do?

This reminds me of a James Madison quote.

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."

Left wingers simply reject this critique and think that those in government are really angels.

Problem is government can’t be limited. Given time and money, it ultimately destroys.

 

[Votto]

The best government is no government.

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

Why do you want politicians and government bureaucrats who are essentially criminals, telling you what you can and can’t do?

This reminds me of a James Madison quote.

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."

Left wingers simply reject this critique and think that those in government are really angels.

Problem is government can’t be limited.

Madison summed this problem up best with, "The great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself"

He knew the problem, which is why they provided the Article V process for states to rise up and try and tame the beast. It has never been used but in no other time in US history do we need this the most.

I realize that perhaps he should have probably said "impossible" rather than "great difficulty". but at least he was wise enough to see the problem.

 

[gipper]

The best government is no government.

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

Why do you want politicians and government bureaucrats who are essentially criminals, telling you what you can and can’t do?

This reminds me of a James Madison quote.

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."

Left wingers simply reject this critique and think that those in government are really angels.

Problem is government can’t be limited.

Madison summed this problem up best with, "The great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself"

He knew the problem, which is why they provided the Article V process for states to rise up and try and tame the beast. It has never been used but in no other time in US history do we need this the most.

I realize that perhaps he should have probably said "impossible" rather than "great difficulty". but at least he was wise enough to see the problem.

Respectfully I find Madison’s comments naive. Government can’t be tamed.

 

[Votto]

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

Why do you want politicians and government bureaucrats who are essentially criminals, telling you what you can and can’t do?

This reminds me of a James Madison quote.

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."

Left wingers simply reject this critique and think that those in government are really angels.

Problem is government can’t be limited.

Madison summed this problem up best with, "The great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself"

He knew the problem, which is why they provided the Article V process for states to rise up and try and tame the beast. It has never been used but in no other time in US history do we need this the most.

I realize that perhaps he should have probably said "impossible" rather than "great difficulty". but at least he was wise enough to see the problem.

Respectfully I find Madison’s comments naive. Government can’t be tamed.

To a degree it can.

When the Founders fought a bloody revolution to be free from the tyranny of the British crown, they then inexplicably passed the Alien and Sedition Acts that made speaking out against the US government to be illegal.

Thomas Jefferson was appalled and then swore to repeal them. He was largely successful in repealing them, but that did not stop him from using them for his own benefit until they were repealed.

Not all the provisions were done away with as FDR used what was left over the imprison innocent Japanese Americans during WW2.

Think of it, these people were unconstitutionally imprisoned simply because of their race, yet left wingers dub him as one of the greatest presidents ever.

 

[gipper]

Why do you want politicians and government bureaucrats who are essentially criminals, telling you what you can and can’t do?

This reminds me of a James Madison quote.

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."

Left wingers simply reject this critique and think that those in government are really angels.

Problem is government can’t be limited.

Madison summed this problem up best with, "The great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself"

He knew the problem, which is why they provided the Article V process for states to rise up and try and tame the beast. It has never been used but in no other time in US history do we need this the most.

I realize that perhaps he should have probably said "impossible" rather than "great difficulty". but at least he was wise enough to see the problem.

Respectfully I find Madison’s comments naive. Government can’t be tamed.

To a degree it can.

When the Founders fought a bloody revolution to be free from the tyranny of the British crown, they then inexplicably passed the Alien and Sedition Acts that made speaking out against the US government to be illegal.

Thomas Jefferson was appalled and then swore to repeal them. He was largely successful in repealing them, but that did not stop him from using them for his own benefit until they were repealed.

Not all the provisions were done away with as FDR used what was left over the imprison innocent Japanese Americans during WW2.

Think of it, these people were unconstitutionally imprisoned simply because of their race, yet left wingers dub him as one of the greatest presidents ever.

Yes it can be tamed, but only by revolution ie ..,by force of arms.

 

[Votto]

This reminds me of a James Madison quote.

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."

Left wingers simply reject this critique and think that those in government are really angels.

Problem is government can’t be limited.

Madison summed this problem up best with, "The great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself"

He knew the problem, which is why they provided the Article V process for states to rise up and try and tame the beast. It has never been used but in no other time in US history do we need this the most.

I realize that perhaps he should have probably said "impossible" rather than "great difficulty". but at least he was wise enough to see the problem.

Respectfully I find Madison’s comments naive. Government can’t be tamed.

To a degree it can.

When the Founders fought a bloody revolution to be free from the tyranny of the British crown, they then inexplicably passed the Alien and Sedition Acts that made speaking out against the US government to be illegal.

Thomas Jefferson was appalled and then swore to repeal them. He was largely successful in repealing them, but that did not stop him from using them for his own benefit until they were repealed.

Not all the provisions were done away with as FDR used what was left over the imprison innocent Japanese Americans during WW2.

Think of it, these people were unconstitutionally imprisoned simply because of their race, yet left wingers dub him as one of the greatest presidents ever.

Yes it can be tamed, but only by revolution ie ..,by force of arms.

As I have pointed out historically, Jefferson did curb the overreach of government somewhat without the force of arms, but only through the checks and balances set up by the Constitution.

Now did the Constitution provide enough checks and balances to do the job? No, sadly it did not.