Kinda curious as to what people would say in favor of big gov't considering the conversation going on in the libertarianism=anarchy thread.
Are there ANY benefits to big gov't?
- Thread starter L Gilbert
- Start date
The only advantage to "big" gov't is to people who want to be civil servants.
That said, I'm not necessarily in favour of what some people mean by "small" governments; usually this is simply asking for no regulations at all, which is a horrible idea.
I believe that there is too much gov't in Canada at present, but I wouldn't go as far as some in trimming.
That said, I'm not necessarily in favour of what some people mean by "small" governments; usually this is simply asking for no regulations at all, which is a horrible idea.
I believe that there is too much gov't in Canada at present, but I wouldn't go as far as some in trimming.
That's a hard question to answer Gilbert, but here goes, big and scocialist and getting ready for war.
Good point, TP. I meant big gov't as in democratic gov'ts and republics and the like.
Jaysus, Beav. I don't know if I wanna take the time to read all that.
Jaysus, Beav. I don't know if I wanna take the time to read all that.
That's a hard question to answer Gilbert, but here goes, big and scocialist and getting ready for war.
You know who is going to suck us dry if we don't.:wave:
You know who is going to suck us dry if we don't.:wave:
Big Government means there will always be corruption and waste, but always hard workers and straight arrows to kinda make up for it. Its very stable.
Small governments are far easier to fully root out waste and corruption, and far easier to become completely corrupt.
Basically, the law of averages.
Small governments are far easier to fully root out waste and corruption, and far easier to become completely corrupt.
Basically, the law of averages.
That's a hard question to answer Gilbert, but here goes, big and scocialist and military, with Harpers help this will happen.You know who is going to suck us dry if we don't. I know you think I'm kidding but that's the way the world is turning.:wave:
You are dreaming... Is Jack Layton and his moustache going to lead you to socialist paradise?
Hmmmmmmmmmm. I'm noticing a conspicuous lack of input from BW here. Either he's gone or just likes nitpicking.
To be honest, EVERY way of doing things has it's pluses and minuses. There are pluses to big government....like more jobs for people in the government, which is good for the economy overall...but there are also bad aspects. I think every country has to strike it's own balance, what works for it...and that usually means incorporating ideas from a variety of isms.
I doubt the Jack Layton suggestion, it dosn't work that way, and if you think I'm dreaming you must be sleeping yourself. Take a look at south America and you'll see our future. Take a look at Iraq and you'll see what happens to Uncle Sams former friends with oil.Canada is to be used as a last reserve
for the US. Do you think we'll be equal partners in the oil water and resource wars that have started?
I don't dream that much Durka. It's amusing to see everybody here deciding what sort of government they'd like for Canada when the fact is that's Washingtons decision to make.Think I'm kidding, think again. Welcome to Amerika.Get ready to kiss the stars and stripes, I hope you like apple pie.:wave:
It depends on what you mean by big government. If you mean large bureaucracies for their own sake then the answer would be "of course not". If you mean a government that takes a justifiably active and effective role in addressing the issues of the day then the answer would likely be different. Either way the question barks up the wrong tree. A good planner need be aware of discernable restraints, but doesn't determine the size of a building and then decide what to do with it.
Explain to me how employing a lot of people working for the gov't is good for the economy. Gov't employees pay income tax that is only regurgitated tax. They do not introduce new money into the system but they do take it out. Follow the money trail. Their money comes from gov't, gov't money comes from taxes and the like, gov't employees give a small portion of it back plus some compensation in the form of work, and round and round it goes.
Gov't gets increasingly inefficient as it gets bigger. Activity and decision-making slows down considerably. This results in a larger tax burden on the public.
Gov't also gets more intrusive as it gets bigger and feels it is big enough it can handle more responsibility. This results in the erosion of liberties.
The bigger it gets the easier it is to find corruption in it. It's also much harder to pinpoint the source(s) of the corruption.
Obviously it would be of no help to have a gov't too small to live up to its obligation of caring for its people and dealing with other countries. Part of the problem of big gov't is that it does not consider that people have worked hard for the money that it gets in taxes, therefore it has no respect for that money. It thinks it has a money tree in the back yard it can just pluck a few bills off when it wants some. Gov't workers have very little motive for make sure that the gov't gets its money's worth.
When does a gov't decide that people's personal lives are not "issues of the day" for it to make decisions on? When does it decide that it should pay no more for a service or a good than Joe Lunchbucket pays? When does it decide after 2 or 3 years of hashing out a problem that the problem may have changed and the solution it was working on wouldn't be applicable? When does it decide that retirement packages for its employees and politicians should be more in line with the private packages? ( Last I heard, after 6 measly years of sitting in the gov't side of the HoC a politician can retire with about $80,000 per year pension for the rest of its life).
Government, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a terrible master.
Paraphrased from someone.....Webster?
I would add that, like fires, governments are best kept small..........
So when is big government justifiable and when is it big enough that there is very little need for it to have concern for its actions?
Just thought I'd look and see if there was a definition of "big gov't": wikipedia had something but it's not very satisfactory - "Big government is a pejorative term used mostly by political conservatives or advocates of laissez-faire to describe the central government of their country. The term is mainly used to evoke criticism of a government which is believed to be excessively large and costly, with too many programs that interfere on too many areas of public life. "
Now there's the rub.
The answer was originally that gov't was only to keep general order, to defend the weak from the strong with rule of law, and to provide for the common defense.
Obviously, that model is outdated.
I think gov't has gone to far when they start giving you suggestions (backed by law) you would not accept in good graces from your neighbour.
Don't smoke!
Wear a seat belt!
You can't say that!
That movie/music/idea is dangerous! Throw it out!
You have too many guns!
Don't you dare discipline that child!
You get the idea.
Gotta go now.