Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I've already stated that funding a government agency to oversee our education is something I can support.When does a country stop developing?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?
I take it you don't want to answer my questions.
Well, that certainly explains their high suicide rate. A great quality of life.Well, may I suggest we ask them WHY they are happy?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?
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.”
The Constitution is meaningless today. The Founder’s fears of government tyranny, have been realized.Yes it can be tamed, but only by revolution ie ..,by force of arms.Respectfully I find Madison’s comments naive. Government can’t be tamed.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.
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.
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.
They are conditioned to be happy being controlled by their governmentWell, may I suggest we ask them WHY they are happy?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?
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.”
Hey, if you have a better system, I'm all ears.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.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.
Yeah, wise.
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.
Don't believe that for a second.Hey, if you have a better system, I'm all ears.
Carry On, Carrion!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?
People Submit to Propaganda Because There's No Power in Thinking for ThemselvesHey, if you have a better system, I'm all ears.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.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.
Yeah, wise.
“…the left typically likes to consolidate huge swathes of people and govern them from one, centralized government.”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?
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?
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.
It’s not a binary choice between totalitarianism and anarchy.
It’s making a decision about what is or isn’t the business of government and limiting its powers to strictly those areas.
A government with an unlimited portfolio will ultimately creep into every aspect of our private and public lives.
Why are you ignoring the reasons why the citizens say they are happy?Well, may I suggest we ask them WHY they are happy?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?
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?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.What say you?
No.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?
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.From what I can gather, the left typically likes to consolidate huge swathes of people and govern them from one, centralized government.
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.
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?
Not sure what you're talking about, there. It's about the same as the rest of the developed world: World suicide rates by countryWell, that certainly explains their high suicide rate. A great quality of life.Well, may I suggest we ask them WHY they are happy?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?
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.”
Such horseshit...They are conditioned to be happy being controlled by their government
we are not.
Shouldn't you show data demonstrating US education was better before a federal education agency was formed? After all, that's your premise.But, as far as I can tell, government is better when it's smaller and more localized.
And, bingo. The problem is, we've devolved into such shallow, simplistic, binary thought that more and more people are intellectually hamstrung by it.It’s not a binary choice between totalitarianism and anarchy.
And, bingo. The problem is, we've devolved into such shallow, simplistic, binary thought that more and more people are intellectually hamstrung by it.It’s not a binary choice between totalitarianism and anarchy.
The answer lies in finding a proper equilibrium, a point or area at which government provides acceptably effective & efficient services and safety nets without creating too much of a drag on the dynamic nature of markets, innovation and individual freedom.
But finding that equilibrium is essentially impossible in this environment. So most likely, we'll continue this wild back-and-forth approach for the foreseeable future. This is the predictable result of ego, party & ideology taking priority over country.
.
Precisely the kind binary thought I was talking about. Nowhere did I use the term "middle", or "center", but people who are intellectually affixed to a Left/Right ideology make that binary leap, that simplistic assumption. If it's not far Left or far Right, it can only be the middle. That's it. Book it.Saying that they need to take steps toward each other and meet in the middle is saying that facts don't matter.
