CDZ Isn't smaller governance better?

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Many people, in my experience, don't fall into the crack. They fight tooth and nail to get into them. It's not a few bad decisions that get you to the bottom of society. It's a steady stream of deliberately bad decisions from early adulthood.

"Many people"

How intentionally vague of you.... Hedge much?

Only an ideologue would make a statement that fully all of any group fits the same standard.

Hah, still hedging...

 

[dblack]

I tend to see it as a failure of society at large to produce desirable results in the distribution of our material needs. There are many reasons people slip through the cracks, economically speaking. Neither of your ideas addresses that fact.

Well, I'm not a socialist. Government has no business 'addressing' the distribution of our material needs.

Government has a responsibility to help those who need help

No, society has a responsibility to help those in need. And government is the wrong tool for the job. Government is there to make laws and enforce them. Not to supply us with our needs.

 

[dblack]

Well, I'm not a socialist. Government has no business 'addressing' the distribution of our material needs.

Government has a responsibility to help those who need help

It really doesn't nor should you expect it to. There is a large population of people in this country who see it as theft (I'm not one) but seen from their perspective they aren't wrong.

It is how societies function

It is how dysfunctional societies function.

It is why we formed societies. The whole is stronger than the individual pieces. One of the benefits of a society is it will take care of its weakest members......unless it is a Nazi society

But it's NOT why we formed government. Believe it or not, society and government aren't synonymous.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No, society has a responsibility to help those in need. And government is the wrong tool for the job.

But society does not fulfill that need, so we ask government to do it. It then does become the government's responsibility, as government is whatever we say it is.

 

[dblack]

No, society has a responsibility to help those in need. And government is the wrong tool for the job.

But society does not fulfill that need, so we ask government to do it. It then does become the government's responsibility, as government is whatever we say it is.

No, government is what the Constitution says it is. That's the entire point of having a Constitution, so ambitious people can't just use the government to force their will on society willy-nilly.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No, government is what the Constitution says it is

And the Constitution clearly delineates things "left to the people". This also means that, shpuld the people then decide a function is the responsibility of the government (e.g., Social Security), then it becomes the responsibility of the government. You are rehashing and reiterating an argument that was lost long, long ago.

 

[fncceo]

But society does not fulfill that need, so we ask government to do it.

How's that working out for you?

"Giving money and power to politicians is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys."

-- P.J. O' Rourke (Parliament of Whores)

 

[dblack]

No, government is what the Constitution says it is

And the Constitution clearly delineates things "left to the people".

Yeah. The people. As in NOT government.

This isn't complicated. And I know most of you actually do get the point of the Constitution. You just don't like it and want to subvert limits on government so you can bully people you don't like. No thanks.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

How's that working out for you?

Pretty good, really, thanks for asking! Could be better, but that's because we limit what the government can do. Hey...why didnt society help that guy in the dumpster? Why didn't you?

 

[fncceo]

How's that working out for you?

Pretty good, really, thanks for asking! Could be better, but that's because we limit what the government can do. Hey...why didnt society help that guy in the dumpster? Why didn't you?

I help the homeless every day. I take them to shelters. I keep them from getting robbed or attacked. I know the homeless up close and personal and I know why they’re on the streets.

If you think lawmakers can help the homeless you’re grossly uniformed on the issue.

 

[K9Buck]

Small governance allowed citizens to throw waste into the streets and rivers. Disease and plague were rampant.

You mean like how the EPA did?

That is so dumb.

How is it dumb? It's a factual event.

EPA Says It Released 3 Million Gallons Of Contaminated Water Into River

So the only thing keeping locals from completely trashing their own fresh water supplies is the EPA? LOL.

 

[deanrd]

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?

I say now that we have Republicans wanting to put guards and bulletproof glass and metal detectors and cement barricades all over our public schools, then yes, there is too much government.

 

[fncceo]

I say now that we have Republicans wanting to put guards and bulletproof glass and metal detectors and cement barricades all over our public schools

As a lifelong Republican, I don't care what security precautions are taken at public school. My kid went to a private school ... with good security.

 

[rightwinger]

I tend to see it as a failure of society at large to produce desirable results in the distribution of our material needs. There are many reasons people slip through the cracks, economically speaking. Neither of your ideas addresses that fact.

Well, I'm not a socialist. Government has no business 'addressing' the distribution of our material needs.

Government has a responsibility to help those who need help

No, society has a responsibility to help those in need. And government is the wrong tool for the job. Government is there to make laws and enforce them. Not to supply us with our needs.

Government of the people, by the people and for the people
We the People created that government in order to form a more perfect union

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I tend to see it as a failure of society at large to produce desirable results in the distribution of our material needs. There are many reasons people slip through the cracks, economically speaking. Neither of your ideas addresses that fact.

Well, I'm not a socialist. Government has no business 'addressing' the distribution of our material needs.

Government has a responsibility to help those who need help

No, society has a responsibility to help those in need. And government is the wrong tool for the job. Government is there to make laws and enforce them. Not to supply us with our needs.

Government of the people, by the people and for the people
We the People created that government in order to form a more perfect union

Having nothing to do with the ‘size’ of that government.

 

[rightwinger]

I tend to see it as a failure of society at large to produce desirable results in the distribution of our material needs. There are many reasons people slip through the cracks, economically speaking. Neither of your ideas addresses that fact.

Well, I'm not a socialist. Government has no business 'addressing' the distribution of our material needs.

Government has a responsibility to help those who need help

No, society has a responsibility to help those in need. And government is the wrong tool for the job. Government is there to make laws and enforce them. Not to supply us with our needs.

Government of the people, by the people and for the people
We the People created that government in order to form a more perfect union

Having nothing to do with the ‘size’ of that government.

We the people decide on the size of government we want

 

[usmbguest5318]

Well, I'm not a socialist. Government has no business 'addressing' the distribution of our material needs.

Government has a responsibility to help those who need help

No, society has a responsibility to help those in need. And government is the wrong tool for the job. Government is there to make laws and enforce them. Not to supply us with our needs.

Government of the people, by the people and for the people
We the People created that government in order to form a more perfect union

Having nothing to do with the ‘size’ of that government.

We the people decide on the size of government we want

I think you or anyone would be very hard pressed to show that to be an accurate statement.

"We the people" decide whom to emplace as our representatives and, in turn, those representatives get to decide how large or small be the government. Such is the nature of a republic. Even there, however, the elected representatives don't directly decide on size, but rather on the scope of activities the government will undertake, size being merely a consequence of how much or how little the government attempts to accomplish.

 

[rightwinger]

Well, I'm not a socialist. Government has no business 'addressing' the distribution of our material needs.

Government has a responsibility to help those who need help

No, society has a responsibility to help those in need. And government is the wrong tool for the job. Government is there to make laws and enforce them. Not to supply us with our needs.

Government of the people, by the people and for the people
We the People created that government in order to form a more perfect union

Having nothing to do with the ‘size’ of that government.

We the people decide on the size of government we want

I think you or anyone would be very hard pressed to show that to be an accurate statement.

"We the people" decide whom to emplace as our representatives and, in turn, those representatives get to decide how large or small be the government. Such is the nature of a republic. Even there, however, the elected representatives don't directly decide on size, but rather on the scope of activities the government will undertake, size being merely a consequence of how much or how little the government attempts to accomplish.

And there is the beauty of it
We the People routinely vote out those representatives who go against our wishes
The scope of government has been increasing for generations. If the people disapproved, we would have let our feelings be known
The people like government programs

 

[dblack]

Government has a responsibility to help those who need help

No, society has a responsibility to help those in need. And government is the wrong tool for the job. Government is there to make laws and enforce them. Not to supply us with our needs.

Government of the people, by the people and for the people
We the People created that government in order to form a more perfect union

Having nothing to do with the ‘size’ of that government.

We the people decide on the size of government we want

I think you or anyone would be very hard pressed to show that to be an accurate statement.

"We the people" decide whom to emplace as our representatives and, in turn, those representatives get to decide how large or small be the government. Such is the nature of a republic. Even there, however, the elected representatives don't directly decide on size, but rather on the scope of activities the government will undertake, size being merely a consequence of how much or how little the government attempts to accomplish.

And there is the beauty of it
We the People routinely vote out those representatives who go against our wishes
The scope of government has been increasing for generations. If the people disapproved, we would have let our feelings be known
The people like government programs

Majoritarian pablum. History has shown that unlimited democracy is a disaster.

The thing is, "We the People" already decided the scope and limits of government power. And we can change those limits, by amending the Constitution, but it takes more than a simple majority vote.

If we're too impatient for that, we can cheat. We can elect leaders and judges who will ignore the Constitution. We can 'reinterpret' it to accommodate our current goals for society. But doing that comes at a price. Dependable limits on government power are what make democracy possible. Those limits are what make losing an election a tolerable outcome. Without them, losing to an opposing party can literally be a matter of life or death, and people will act to defend themselves. They won't accept rule of law and sovereignty crumbles. We're seeing that happen now.

 

[rightwinger]

No, society has a responsibility to help those in need. And government is the wrong tool for the job. Government is there to make laws and enforce them. Not to supply us with our needs.

Government of the people, by the people and for the people
We the People created that government in order to form a more perfect union

Having nothing to do with the ‘size’ of that government.

We the people decide on the size of government we want

I think you or anyone would be very hard pressed to show that to be an accurate statement.

"We the people" decide whom to emplace as our representatives and, in turn, those representatives get to decide how large or small be the government. Such is the nature of a republic. Even there, however, the elected representatives don't directly decide on size, but rather on the scope of activities the government will undertake, size being merely a consequence of how much or how little the government attempts to accomplish.

And there is the beauty of it
We the People routinely vote out those representatives who go against our wishes
The scope of government has been increasing for generations. If the people disapproved, we would have let our feelings be known
The people like government programs

Majoritarian pablum. History has shown that unlimited democracy is a disaster.

The thing is, "We the People" already decided the scope and limits of government power. And we can change those limits, by amending the Constitution, but it takes more than a simple majority vote.

If we're too impatient for that, we can cheat. We can elect leaders and judges who will ignore the Constitution. We can 'reinterpret' it to accommodate our current goals for society. But doing that comes at a price. Dependable limits on government power are what make democracy possible. Those limits are what make losing an election a tolerable outcome. Without them, losing to an opposing party can literally be a matter of life or death, and people will act to defend themselves. They won't accept rule of law and sovereignty crumbles. We're seeing that happen now.

No need to amend the Constittion every time we adapt our governmental functions

We have a Congress to do that. If they violate constitutional power.....we have a court system