If citizens actually had free choice in which government programs to fund as well as how much to contribute, the size of the US government (measured both in revenue and power over the people) would be 1/10 the size of today's utter monstrosity.
And if citizens literally had to cut a check at the beginning of every year, rather than pay through deliberately-obfuscated systems designed to hide the true cost of government, the size of government would be cut again by 90%.
If you hate government so much, move to Somalia. Seriously.
If you love water so much, why not move to the middle of the Atlantic?
The problem is not government in general. The problem is TOO MUCH government, and too much CENTRALIZED government. You have much more power influencing your local and state government than you will ever have trying to influence the federal government. This should be obvious when you consider that 48/50 US Senators don't care about you or your state.
If we had more local control over our lives, your argument would carry much more weight.
I'm not convinced that it is the quantity of government, but rather its specific content. The government is doing things that it should not, and not doing things that it should. Reducing the size of government might reduce the number of things it is doing that it should not, but I assure you the other side of this imbalance will only get worse, because the government will likely also stop doing several things that it should be doing.
Exactly. People will bitch and moan about the government all day but then they get to drive to work on paved roads with traffic moderation and other amenities. There are several superfund sites in my state left over by the mining industry when it was policing itsself for years and years. Now who has to clean the mercury out of the aquifer so these ignorant a-holes can drink clean water? It isn't the company that created the mess I can tell you that for sure and it isn't the state government. The Federa
I agree with ArcherB; when people complain government is too big, immediately people jump into Washington Monument Syndrome and claim that shrinking government will take away the really valuable things that most people want... but more than that, it conflates different kinds of tax revenues and where and how they are collected and what they are used for.
If you take a look at the huge debate going on in Washington right now, you don't hear people complaining about gasoline taxes - which is what is supposed t
Number 1, just moving taxes to the state level (or even the county/city level) is not going to fix the budget problem. It just means someone else is responsible for it. Number 2, a significant number of states manage to have a balanced budget only because of help from the federal government for infrastructure, health care, education and security. Increasing their budgets while reducing their revenue is going to make the problem worse. Number 3, there is the implicit assumption here that a more local government is more accountable and more transparent, which is nonsense. That is a feature of the people who are in government, not of how many people vote for each representant. Number 4, local governments are actually at higher risk to be inefficient, because now it only takes a few hundred morons to band together to ruin everything. Granted, you also have a higher chance of having an effectively run government, just because you have a small enclave of smart, responsible people working together for the greater common good. But it certainly isn't a guarantee that smaller is better.
Finally, the mantra that government should be more local. How much more local should be? You mention that you have 60 times more influence at the city level than at the county level. Shouldn't the city then get the majority of your taxes? But how do you then build something like the Hoover dam? Pursue criminals across city lines? Well, you could have cities in various counties band together until they get enough money to build something like a dam, or set up a unified police force that that agrees to share information, tools and prosecutions... and now you're right back where you started off: moving things up government chain, because there are huge economies of scale that can't be accessed by city governments.
Not to mention: if you move the government power to small entities like city or even state governments, how do you deal with corporations whose profits exceed the state's revenue and completely dwarf that of county or city governments?
Yes, government isn't always better when it's bigger. But it also certainly isn't always better when it's smaller. The real problem is that the devil is in the detail, and a lot of people can't or refuse to understand that. Then we get shit like some party ideologues holding America's AAA credit rating hostage in order to advance their sophomoric ideas.
Well ... (Score:5, Funny)
Easy enough (Score:0, Insightful)
If citizens actually had free choice in which government programs to fund as well as how much to contribute, the size of the US government (measured both in revenue and power over the people) would be 1/10 the size of today's utter monstrosity.
And if citizens literally had to cut a check at the beginning of every year, rather than pay through deliberately-obfuscated systems designed to hide the true cost of government, the size of government would be cut again by 90%.
Too bad government isn't voluntary, or t
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
If you hate government so much, move to Somalia. Seriously.
If you love water so much, why not move to the middle of the Atlantic?
The problem is not government in general. The problem is TOO MUCH government, and too much CENTRALIZED government. You have much more power influencing your local and state government than you will ever have trying to influence the federal government. This should be obvious when you consider that 48/50 US Senators don't care about you or your state.
If we had more local control over our lives, your argument would carry much more weight.
Re: (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not convinced that it is the quantity of government, but rather its specific content. The government is doing things that it should not, and not doing things that it should. Reducing the size of government might reduce the number of things it is doing that it should not, but I assure you the other side of this imbalance will only get worse, because the government will likely also stop doing several things that it should be doing.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I agree with ArcherB; when people complain government is too big, immediately people jump into Washington Monument Syndrome and claim that shrinking government will take away the really valuable things that most people want... but more than that, it conflates different kinds of tax revenues and where and how they are collected and what they are used for.
If you take a look at the huge debate going on in Washington right now, you don't hear people complaining about gasoline taxes - which is what is supposed t
Re:Easy enough (Score:3)
What he's saying is most taxes should be local.
But should it, really? And how local is local?
Number 1, just moving taxes to the state level (or even the county/city level) is not going to fix the budget problem. It just means someone else is responsible for it. Number 2, a significant number of states manage to have a balanced budget only because of help from the federal government for infrastructure, health care, education and security. Increasing their budgets while reducing their revenue is going to make the problem worse. Number 3, there is the implicit assumption here that a more local government is more accountable and more transparent, which is nonsense. That is a feature of the people who are in government, not of how many people vote for each representant. Number 4, local governments are actually at higher risk to be inefficient, because now it only takes a few hundred morons to band together to ruin everything. Granted, you also have a higher chance of having an effectively run government, just because you have a small enclave of smart, responsible people working together for the greater common good. But it certainly isn't a guarantee that smaller is better.
Finally, the mantra that government should be more local. How much more local should be? You mention that you have 60 times more influence at the city level than at the county level. Shouldn't the city then get the majority of your taxes? But how do you then build something like the Hoover dam? Pursue criminals across city lines? Well, you could have cities in various counties band together until they get enough money to build something like a dam, or set up a unified police force that that agrees to share information, tools and prosecutions... and now you're right back where you started off: moving things up government chain, because there are huge economies of scale that can't be accessed by city governments.
Not to mention: if you move the government power to small entities like city or even state governments, how do you deal with corporations whose profits exceed the state's revenue and completely dwarf that of county or city governments?
Yes, government isn't always better when it's bigger. But it also certainly isn't always better when it's smaller. The real problem is that the devil is in the detail, and a lot of people can't or refuse to understand that. Then we get shit like some party ideologues holding America's AAA credit rating hostage in order to advance their sophomoric ideas.