Total Posts:43|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Can too small a government be dangerous?

1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 2:14:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I like small government, but it cannot be too small, also if the country is rapidly moving too much the government should move with it. Remember that there were people who believed in no government assistance to disabled people, that there should be none to assist victims from disasters, that there should be none to help our elderly. In our time there is too much government, but too little might be disastrous as well.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 2:19:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/8/2012 2:14:08 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
I like small government, but it cannot be too small, also if the country is rapidly moving too much the government should move with it. Remember that there were people who believed in no government assistance to disabled people, that there should be none to assist victims from disasters, that there should be none to help our elderly. In our time there is too much government, but too little might be disastrous as well.

There are still people who believe those things. In fact, I know one of those people very well (me).
President of DDO
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 2:21:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/8/2012 2:14:08 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
I like small government, but it cannot be too small, also if the country is rapidly moving too much the government should move with it. Remember that there were people who believed in no government assistance to disabled people, that there should be none to assist victims from disasters, that there should be none to help our elderly. In our time there is too much government, but too little might be disastrous as well.

Hmm, so its like spice? Not to much, or you can't taste anything else, but not to little, or you can't taste it at all.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 2:27:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Private charity, insurance, and families can accomplish those things better than any government could. It used to be the responsibility of the family to care for the elderly, but now government has stolen that role; how has that helped society?
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 2:30:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/8/2012 2:27:09 PM, mongeese wrote:
Private charity, insurance, and families can accomplish those things better than any government could. It used to be the responsibility of the family to care for the elderly, but now government has stolen that role; how has that helped society?

Insurance fraud = bad
Private charity fraud = bad
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 2:33:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/8/2012 2:21:03 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 1/8/2012 2:14:08 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
I like small government, but it cannot be too small, also if the country is rapidly moving too much the government should move with it. Remember that there were people who believed in no government assistance to disabled people, that there should be none to assist victims from disasters, that there should be none to help our elderly. In our time there is too much government, but too little might be disastrous as well.

Hmm, so its like spice? Not to much, or you can't taste anything else, but not to little, or you can't taste it at all.

Yes think of it as a big, beautiful, sexy cake. You have all those mixed layers in it and you don't want to add too much frosting, but not to thin or else the cake may not be good. Also when you add the chocolate cake you may not want it too rich or too plain. Then you might add sprinkles to the the cake, what if you use to much sprinkles?
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 2:34:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Articles of Confederation is an example of too small a government.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 2:34:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/8/2012 2:19:09 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/8/2012 2:14:08 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
I like small government, but it cannot be too small, also if the country is rapidly moving too much the government should move with it. Remember that there were people who believed in no government assistance to disabled people, that there should be none to assist victims from disasters, that there should be none to help our elderly. In our time there is too much government, but too little might be disastrous as well.

There are still people who believe those things. In fact, I know one of those people very well (me).

Oddly enough, you picked John Adams on the Top 10 list.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 2:39:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/8/2012 2:14:08 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
I hate small government, but I like looking moderate.

Fix'd.

Remember that there were people who believed in no government assistance to disabled people, that there should be none to assist victims from disasters, that there should be none to help our elderly.
Why should these classes be any more politically favored than the Master Race or the Proletariat?

The Articles of Confederation is an example of too small a government.
No, it's an example of several governments, most of which were pretty big in scope. It didn't centralize them is all.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 2:46:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/8/2012 2:30:46 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 1/8/2012 2:27:09 PM, mongeese wrote:
Private charity, insurance, and families can accomplish those things better than any government could. It used to be the responsibility of the family to care for the elderly, but now government has stolen that role; how has that helped society?

Insurance fraud = bad
Private charity fraud = bad

lol the goverment is inefficient and actually has more fraud then what you mentioned as lobbying occurs and meaningless regulation go into place. Mongees is correct. Much of what the goverment does can be privatized and still work fairly well, our goverment to big and needs to succeed it powers to either the states or private industries.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 2:47:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/8/2012 2:34:23 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
The Articles of Confederation is an example of too small a government.

no it was terribly written
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 2:50:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/8/2012 2:47:21 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 1/8/2012 2:34:23 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
The Articles of Confederation is an example of too small a government.

no it was terribly written

No, it was too small of a government. And may I remind the secessionists among us that the full name was "The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union" and the Constitution was to further strengthen the perpetual union already established in the Articles.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 2:52:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Yes. government can be too small. The federal government should provide for the common defense, control immigration, and negotiate treaties affecting international commerce and the like. At every level, government must provide a system of laws that keeps criminals off the streets and enforces private contracts. Beyond these basic functions it's debatable. I think there are some genuinely national problems, like energy, that are est handled by federal policies.

The elderly are now the richest demographic segment of society, so taxing poorer segments to pay for the richer has problems. I think it is fair to force people to save for their old age, so they do not become a burden on society. A mandatory 401K system is the best way to do that. There is some government role for welfare, I think, but states are more efficient than the Feds and private charity is still more efficient.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 3:04:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/8/2012 2:50:47 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/8/2012 2:47:21 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 1/8/2012 2:34:23 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
The Articles of Confederation is an example of too small a government.

no it was terribly written

No, it was too small of a government. And may I remind the secessionists among us that the full name was "The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union" and the Constitution was to further strengthen the perpetual union already established in the Articles.

It could have worked but the states where not fully ready. I agree a to small of a goverment is bad but a small goverment (not that small) trumps the current one.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 3:13:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/8/2012 2:30:46 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 1/8/2012 2:27:09 PM, mongeese wrote:
Private charity, insurance, and families can accomplish those things better than any government could. It used to be the responsibility of the family to care for the elderly, but now government has stolen that role; how has that helped society?

Insurance fraud = bad
Private charity fraud = bad

Medicaid fraud = bad
Medicare fraud = bad
welfare fraud = bad
social security fraud = bad
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 3:26:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/8/2012 2:14:08 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
I like small government, but it cannot be too small, also if the country is rapidly moving too much the government should move with it. Remember that there were people who believed in no government assistance to disabled people, that there should be none to assist victims from disasters, that there should be none to help our elderly. In our time there is too much government, but too little might be disastrous as well.

The government has no obligation to provide for anybody. More often than not, the people who are getting the assistance can work at some kind of a job. For those people who really can't work (very rare) society has no obligation to provide for them because they are not providing anything back to society. If private charities want to help them, go ahead. But the government helping them is a complete win (person)-lose (government) injustice.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 3:29:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/8/2012 2:52:07 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
I think it is fair to force people to save for their old age, so they do not become a burden on society. A mandatory 401K system is the best way to do that.
The best way to punish people for not saving anything for their old age is leaving them with the consequences of their actions.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 3:30:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/8/2012 3:29:02 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/8/2012 2:52:07 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
I think it is fair to force people to save for their old age, so they do not become a burden on society. A mandatory 401K system is the best way to do that.
The best way to punish people for not saving anything for their old age is leaving them with the consequences of their actions.

What about the societal cost of those who would be homeless or in need of medical care because they did not save at all?

The punishment hurts everyone.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 3:50:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/8/2012 3:30:47 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 1/8/2012 3:29:02 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/8/2012 2:52:07 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
I think it is fair to force people to save for their old age, so they do not become a burden on society. A mandatory 401K system is the best way to do that.
The best way to punish people for not saving anything for their old age is leaving them with the consequences of their actions.

What about the societal cost of those who would be homeless or in need of medical care because they did not save at all?
What societal cost is that? "Leaving them with the consequences of their actions" means society isn't taxed to pay for them.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 3:57:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/8/2012 3:50:18 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/8/2012 3:30:47 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 1/8/2012 3:29:02 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/8/2012 2:52:07 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
I think it is fair to force people to save for their old age, so they do not become a burden on society. A mandatory 401K system is the best way to do that.
The best way to punish people for not saving anything for their old age is leaving them with the consequences of their actions.

What about the societal cost of those who would be homeless or in need of medical care because they did not save at all?
What societal cost is that? "Leaving them with the consequences of their actions" means society isn't taxed to pay for them.

I think a chilly frost just blew over my shoulder. Wow....
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 5:17:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/8/2012 2:39:15 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/8/2012 2:14:08 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
I hate small government, but I like looking moderate.

Fix'd.

Remember that there were people who believed in no government assistance to disabled people, that there should be none to assist victims from disasters, that there should be none to help our elderly.
Why should these classes be any more politically favored than the Master Race or the Proletariat?

The Articles of Confederation is an example of too small a government.
No, it's an example of several governments, most of which were pretty big in scope. It didn't centralize them is all.

Fixed what? I did not say that?
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 5:22:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/8/2012 5:17:38 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 1/8/2012 2:39:15 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/8/2012 2:14:08 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
I hate small government, but I like looking moderate.

Fix'd.

Remember that there were people who believed in no government assistance to disabled people, that there should be none to assist victims from disasters, that there should be none to help our elderly.
Why should these classes be any more politically favored than the Master Race or the Proletariat?

The Articles of Confederation is an example of too small a government.
No, it's an example of several governments, most of which were pretty big in scope. It didn't centralize them is all.

Fixed what? I did say that?

fixed
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 5:30:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/8/2012 5:17:38 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 1/8/2012 2:39:15 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/8/2012 2:14:08 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
I hate small government, but I like looking moderate.

Fix'd.

Remember that there were people who believed in no government assistance to disabled people, that there should be none to assist victims from disasters, that there should be none to help our elderly.
Why should these classes be any more politically favored than the Master Race or the Proletariat?

The Articles of Confederation is an example of too small a government.
No, it's an example of several governments, most of which were pretty big in scope. It didn't centralize them is all.

Fixed what? I did not say that?

A fix is where you change something to be funny or change the meaning. Or be spell check.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 5:51:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/8/2012 5:40:38 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
To the question posed in the title of this thread.


So a government that is too small and too weak to enforce law and order and prosecute criminals is not dangerous?...
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 6:20:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/8/2012 3:57:28 PM, 000ike wrote:
I think a chilly frost just blew over my shoulder. Wow....

How dare anyone suggest that people should not be allowed to use force to outsource their costs onto others!
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 7:11:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/8/2012 5:51:36 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/8/2012 5:40:38 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
To the question posed in the title of this thread.
So a government that is too small and too weak to enforce law and order and prosecute criminals is not dangerous?...

First, small government and weak government are different concepts.

Second, no,it's not. Is a bunny rabbit dangerous? Simply because something fails to alleviate danger from something else does not make the first thing dangerous.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 7:36:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/8/2012 5:51:36 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/8/2012 5:40:38 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
To the question posed in the title of this thread.


So a government that is too small and too weak to enforce law and order and prosecute criminals is not dangerous?...

No, it is. Any government at all is dangerous. The only thing that is not dangerous is no government.
President of DDO
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 7:57:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/8/2012 2:14:08 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
I like small government, but it cannot be too small, also if the country is rapidly moving too much the government should move with it. Remember that there were people who believed in no government assistance to disabled people, that there should be none to assist victims from disasters, that there should be none to help our elderly. In our time there is too much government, but too little might be disastrous as well.:

Too small a government means an emasculated government which cannot even operate. The Articles of Confederation, for instance, limited the government so much that it could not even operate properly. So, yes, I believe too small a government can have deleterious effects, but we're currently nowhere near a government that is too small... far from it.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 7:59:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/8/2012 2:30:46 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 1/8/2012 2:27:09 PM, mongeese wrote:
Private charity, insurance, and families can accomplish those things better than any government could. It used to be the responsibility of the family to care for the elderly, but now government has stolen that role; how has that helped society?

Insurance fraud = bad
Private charity fraud = bad:

Insurance fraud may = bad, but insurance itself does not, nor is it automatically tantamount to fraud.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)