I did not point it out in the OP, which is my bad. I did point it out after you pointed it out to me 
I am not a fan of either party. Point is they both want more government involvement when it is their party in control, which makes sense. The problem is that if each party grows different areas of the government when they are in power, the government will eventually become too big for its own good. I think we are reaching that point now.
Also, I believe that relying on the federal gov so much has caused the deep rifts that we see between dems and pubs. Nothing can be non-partisan anymore because everyone is too busy blaming the other party for their past mistakes.
The statement that government “doesn’t seem to do much right” always impresses me as especially ignorant.
FAA is a fine example. Also roads, sewers and water, postal service, Social Security, police and fire services… The list goes on and on. And tho the OP focusses on federal gov’t, many local services would not exist if not mandated by the feds. Each community does not independently decide appropriate clean water standards, etc.
When people point out waste and ineptitude, they fail to acknowledge that even the most wasteful and incompetent goverment office generally does a good number of things just fine. Sure, most if not all government institutions could be improved - but how many private institutions could you not say the same about? Further, many government institutions serve functions that would not be handled by private industry. And very few private organizations have to act on as large a scale as the feds, or justify the services they provide to the entire range of the population.
Final note - I can understand how libertarianism might appeal to someone who is reasonably healthy, reasonably intelligent, with decent earning potential, such that they might be capable of doing pretty well with less government assistance than currently exists. But I don’t think it would be nearly as appealing to someone below average in terms of any number of socio-economic indicators.
To a large extent I believe a state can be judged in terms of how it provides for its least fortunate. And I’m not sure how libertarianism accomplishes that.
No, we see a “deep rift” because the Republicans are dominated by fanatics who don’t believe in compromise.
Man, this type of statement just impresses me as so stupid. How about running off a list of government involvement you would like decreased? You eager to give up safe medication? Accurate food packaging? Drivable roads? Police protection? The courts?
Or is it just that you would prefer less government involvement in terms of benefits you see going to other people?
Wanna just propose a certain across-the-board cut on ALL spending?
Or, do you just like to complain about paying too many taxes?
And how exactly does making government “smaller” change any of this? These are public policy questions that face every government, regardless of its size. The question of whether to go to war or whether to torture prisoners are questions that can only be answered in the public sphere. They are not questions that can be the solved by devolving power to individuals.
To live in a society, you have to accept that sometimes society as a whole will make decisions you disagree with, but also to acknowledge that you have the responsibility and power to work towards change. The way to deal with it is to participate in the public debate in order to influence policy making. If you object to torture, then you work to make torture illegal and prosecute those who engage in it. Making government “smaller” doesn’t let you avoid any of these problems.
Less government involvement in what? Deciding whether to go to war? Less government involvement in deciding whether people being held by the government should be subject to torture? How exactly does that work? Let each individual decide whether he or she will torture other people?
Hey. First, thanks for all the replies…I have a lot to consider. I was not sure how this would go because I was having a hard time articulating exactly how i feel in the OP, and since posting I realized I should have included the inverse in my OP as well. It is just that all of my friends are liberal except for one, so my view gets clouded sometimes. In general I dislike both parties.
I also think a big part of this for me is that in discussion with my friends, whenever I say i would like less government involvement in things it immediately jumps to them accusing me of not caring about people, which could not be further from the truth, and then i end up having to defend the extreme end of libertarianism, which i do not even think is possible anyway. There is a similar trend in this thread. What I really want is for a grassroots change in this country that teaches people that other people matter. I do not think getting the government involved really addresses that issue. The government can put as many band aides over this problem as they want, but until people change, the problems will persist. Instead of forcing people to do things against their will I would rather see an effort to change people’s will. maybe I am just too optimistic about humanity…
Sorry for the weird post. Carry on.
Changing people is hard. That’s why communism failed.
Work for change if that’s what you want. It’s a great dream. Maybe you’ll achieve it.
But, in the meantime, let’s keep the band-aids. They’re not as good as solving the root causes of a problem, but they’re better than nothing.
I assume it’s different for every school. The argument against schooling though is a market argument. The argument is that universal schooling dumbs down the education so that the best and brightest are held back while the argument FOR it is that the dumbest at least get SOME education.
They have to get operating capital from somewhere. What would keep you from giving money to a liberal secularist school to keep it open so that it could operate at a loss?
Many Christian schools are head and shoulders above an average public school. Big deal.
Exactly HALF of public schools are above an average public school.
What’s your point?
‘Universal schooling’ doesn’t have to mean that people of differing abilities are educated together. Tracking can (if done well) provide both low- and high- achievers what they need to make the most of their education.
From churches, of course. Same as any other missionary work.
Less money, higher expenses, fewer fanatics, less infrastructure ( they have a religious bureaucracy; I have me ).
Are they? It’s like taking pain killers is better than doing nothing if you have a toothache, but they might also kill the pain enough to keep you from going to the dentist to have the actual problem addressed. Whereas, if you stop taking the painkillers it is gonna hurt like a bitch, but it might be what motivates you to actually go have your tooth looked at.
Basically, I don’t think things will get better until they get worse. The values of our culture are screwed up, and I believe that government intervention has caused a lot of our values to be misplaced. Sure, we might have gone through some tougher times in the past had we not had government intervention, but I think we would have emerged as more thoughtful people who are more empathetic to the hardships that others face if we were taught to rely on each other rather than the government. We were never able to fully appreciate the consequences of our actions because the government steps in before people can see how our behavior is adversely affecting other people.
Obviously, this is all just my opinion, but the larger the government gets the less compassionate people seem to be.
Not a single concrete statement in all of that. All those words with basically no meaning whatsoever.
What, exactly, does your compassionmeter say is the optimal government size to give just the right amount of compassion?
-Joe
Really? Do you think people are less compassionate now than they were 50 years ago? Or 100? Big government is a fairly new invention. If small government leads to better people, we should have all been saints a long time ago. But with “freedom” from government we had slavery. We had sweatshops. We had people going hungry. Much of the food stamp program today comes from a CBS documentary in 1968 called Hunger in America (scroll down to 1968.) We’re not evil, we’re just human and distracted.
Yes, so they are organized.
So you are saying that the religious are better at organizing themselves than secular liberals?
Hahahahahaha … ! People used to own slaves. They treated them like cattle. Every single day they walked out the door they could see how their behavior was adversely affecting other people. And you know what? They didn’t fucking care!
Removing the governmental safety net won’t teach people to be nicer. It will just give the strong and the cruel more opportunities to fuck the rest of us harder and deeper. Libertarians like to talk about freedom. But a strong representative government is the best guarantee of freedom that most of us have. It’s all that stands in the way of the rich and the powerful treating us like dogs. Because, you know, most of them don’t fucking care about the likes of you and me.
Secular liberals being less conformist, less numerous and less fanatical yes.
This is my favorite quote ever.
“Raising awareness”? What kind of weak tea is that? No, you’re sure not a conservative, you’re a silly libertarian optimist! “Raising awareness” is namby-pamby limp-wristed Hollywood liberal gobshite. In the real world, those who want to accomplish something take power & do things.
Do, or do not.
I also like this quote.
“If men were angels, we would not need government.”
Opposing “many” to “average” is misleading.
This.
Also this.
CA doesn’t want to legalize pot. That’s a [del]pipe[/del] bong dream.
The Post Office is said to have worked better before it was privatized. Of course, I think the competition from UPS & DHL is a big problem for the USPS.
That said, my hometown once decided to stop picking up trash & let homeowners make their own contracts. Trash just piled up. Some things government has to do. Privatization is not the magic libertarians want it to be.
Considering that taxes are just money, it seems like good courts would be worth more, not to mention other parts of the commons. But people don’t see the price they’re paying, they don’t understand why their ancestors gladly made the bargain, & they assume they can find a better deal without taxes. Not really the case in environmental matters or equal protection issues.
I don’t know if market forces can be trusted to educate the best & brightest to their full potential either. But I would love to make mandatory education only through eighth grade. But it might also be good to outlaw non-accredited church schools & unsupervised home schooling. SOME standard education is good for social cohesion.
No, the government is the dentist. Low taxes are the cocaine.