CDZ Isn't smaller governance better?

[Mac1958]

We're so far now from dynamic, independent thought that I don't know how we get back to it. Worse, this affliction continues to metastasize.

True. Maybe you should join it, not fight it.

I'd really rather not.


.

 

[peacefan]

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 population size of a country is not relevant I think for prosperity levels. Culture is more important.

And decentralized government works better than centralized government in my view, but an under-regulated or unregulated business world will enrich the rich at the cost of everyone and everything else. And too much or irrelevant regulations make running a business too hard.
Businesses work towards short term gains for their own, and government should therefore safeguard everyone on all time ranges, at least to a century into the future.
And I don't think you need miles of red tape for that. Simple rules are the best rules in my opinion

 

[K9Buck]

Why are you ignoring the reasons why the citizens say they are happy?

I'm not ignoring, I just don't feel the need to engage everyone who has an opinion.

 

[K9Buck]

the only reason rightwingnuts like "states' rights" is they figure they can implement their bigoted and discriminatory agenda.

That is the basis for the liberal love of an almighty, all-powerful, centralized, monolithic authoritarian state. Through the force of government, liberals can impose their worldview and ideology on all the people from Fairbanks, Alaska to Key West, Florida and from Portland, Maine to San Diego, California. Heil Hitler!

 

[K9Buck]

Shouldn't you show data demonstrating US education was better before a federal education agency was formed? After all, that's your premise.

No, I think the onus is upon those that want to spend $70 BILLION annually on this federal agency. Wouldn't you like to see evidence for the benefit of this staggering, annual expenditure? My guess is no, you don't care if it's a worthwhile expenditure or a complete waste of money. I take it you've never seen a government program you didn't love.

 

[K9Buck]

I do prefer localized governance, but I can't agree that it is better in all circumstances and I think that the capitalist system of production inhibits its effectiveness.

Well, then I think we agree more than we disagree. Yes, there are some things that only the fed can manage, such as national defense. I happen to think that, for instance, the DoED is counterproductive to its aim as we would get more bang for our buck by spending that money at our local schools instead of sending it to Washington. Yes, I know some of it comes back but not all of it. Perhaps you feel it's better for our children to take money from their school's budget in order to spend it supporting the DoED. I simply disagree.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I'm not ignoring, I just don't feel the need to engage everyone who has an opinion.

Uh...those were the opinions of Danish citizens. You asked why they were happy. It is literally the topic of this thread. They answered. And you ignore them?

I think we know why you ignored them.

 

[Tehon]

I do prefer localized governance, but I can't agree that it is better in all circumstances and I think that the capitalist system of production inhibits its effectiveness.

Well, then I think we agree more than we disagree. Yes, there are some things that only the fed can manage, such as national defense. I happen to think that, for instance, the DoED is counterproductive to its aim as we would get more bang for our buck by spending that money at our local schools instead of sending it to Washington. Yes, I know some of it comes back but not all of it. Perhaps you feel it's better for our children to take money from their school's budget in order to spend it supporting the DoED. I simply disagree.

The money doesn't come from the schools budget.

It often supplements it through programs that help kids in need.

 

[K9Buck]

The money doesn't come from the schools budget.

I know. Nevertheless, the federal government is taking additional resources from local communities in order to fund the DoED.

 

[Tehon]

The money doesn't come from the schools budget.

I know. Nevertheless, the federal government is taking additional resources from local communities in order to fund the DoED.

Could you be more specific as to the additional resources being drained from communities.

 

[K9Buck]

I'm not ignoring, I just don't feel the need to engage everyone who has an opinion.

Uh...those were the opinions of Danish citizens. You asked why they were happy. It is literally the topic of this thread. They answered. And you ignore them?

I think we know why you ignored them.

The topic of my thread is whether or not having smaller government is better than larger government. One reason I posited that places like Denmark and Sweden might be happier than those in other nations is that they are small nations with more of a "local" federalized government, unlike the U.S. or China or Russia, etc.

 

[K9Buck]

Could you be more specific as to the additional resources being drained from communities.

The federal budget for the DoED is about $70 billion. If this department didn't exist, it would be possible to reduce federal taxes, which would leave more money in local jurisdictions, who could then ask for more money and, possibly, get it.

 

[rightwinger]

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?

We have a population of 330 million, the largest economy in the history of mankind, the largest military

Why would we settle for small government ???

 

[rightwinger]

Could you be more specific as to the additional resources being drained from communities.

The federal budget for the DoED is about $70 billion. If this department didn't exist, it would be possible to reduce federal taxes, which would leave more money in local jurisdictions, who could then ask for more money and, possibly, get it.

$70 billion will reduce expenses?

The military budget is ten times that

 

[Tehon]

Could you be more specific as to the additional resources being drained from communities.

The federal budget for the DoED is about $70 billion. If this department didn't exist, it would be possible to reduce federal taxes, which would leave more money in local jurisdictions, who could then ask for more money and, possibly, get it.

Possibly, depending on the locale. How do disadvantaged kids catch a break when they live in a locale that would not support higher taxes at the local level?

 

[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?

We have a population of 330 million, the largest economy in the history of mankind, the largest military

Why would we settle for small government ???

I didn't say we should have a "small" government, whatever that would entail.

I do believe that we would be better off if we did LESS governing at the federal level in as I believe there are some things that local government can do better, such as, for example, managing our public schools.

 

[K9Buck]

How do disadvantaged kids catch a break when they live in a locale that would not support higher taxes at the local level?

I think states and local communities can better address the needs of their students.

 

[Tehon]

How do disadvantaged kids catch a break when they live in a locale that would not support higher taxes at the local level?

I think states and local communities can better address the needs of their students.

I would think it depends largely on the tax base. Federal programs help those in need.

 

[K9Buck]

The military budget is ten times that

I take it you're opposed to cutting anything from the federal budget. The more the fed spends, the better, right?

 

[K9Buck]

I would think it depends largely on the tax base.

I believe it's a matter the state should address.