If the government doesn't do a good job...

[Poisoner]

Since 60% of the population who voted in my last poll did not believe the government does a good job at delivering its services. How can we insist on it adding more to its plate when it cannot handle what it is doing now. (This is addressed more to Americans for those who cannot infer without being sarcastic).

[El Brujo]

[leftist]Expand the government and increase taxes so it can handle the strain of providing services.[\leftist]

The smaller the government, the better. We don't need no stinkin' welfare! America owes its greatness to having a small government pre-Wilson/FDR.

[Kiljan Arslan]

I'm not going to vote for this poll because it is completley biased.

[Sétanta]

...yet shockingly true.

Government=bad.

[Poisoner]

I admit I always go for the cheap shots against socialism, but don't diss the poll because I am an ass. Just answer the question. How can we expect the government to handle more stuff when the majority of the people don't think the government does a good job?

Put want in one hand and **** in the other.

[Kiljan Arslan]

Please try to keep cheap shots off the thread.

My solution is to change the way to vote to servicism and make it so you have tos erve 2 years stints in either civil or military service to get welfare, Healthcare and SS.

[Earl of Rochester]

1)Obviously the people who think the government does a bad job at things are pro-capitalism, anti-socialism. So your logical "trap" is moot.

Your saying government is bad, so your options are
1)give it more and make it worse
2)make it do less and be better.

But if I believe the government is good my choices are completely different. So its not like Im trapped to pick one of those. I would pick a choice based off my belief that the government is good, which is something like
1)give it more/keep it same since it does good
2)give it less/allow private sector to drag country down

Im sorry, but this poll is thus inherently flawed and this is beyond your personal bias. You have created a poll which means absolutely nothing. Bravo.

2)Even if one did not believe the government was good, then they still have more options than you listed.

The obvious one being
*work on reforming the government so it is more efficient at what it does.

[El Brujo]

work on reforming the government so it is more efficient at what it does.

By making it smaller and reducing its obligations.

[Kiljan Arslan]

Well working on reforming it can mena many things it could mean reducing it, or it could mean more oversite by the populous, or many other things.

[El Brujo]

But when I say making government more efficient, it means reducing it.

[Earl of Rochester]

But when I say making government more efficient, it means reducing it.

But it is not an end all. Obviously things could be done other than making it smaller. That is possibly one way to make it more efficient, though that is quite arguable.

But what is not arguable is that there could be other ways.

[El Brujo]

I tend to think of government of being inefficient by its very nature. Therefore the only way to increase the government's efficiency is by reducing the government itself. Efficiency and government size are inversely proportional.

[Earl of Rochester]

I tend to think of government of being inefficient by its very nature. Therefore the only way to increase the government's efficiency is by reducing the government itself. Efficiency and government size are inversely proportional.

Lets see:

Articles on Confederation- weak and inefficient

Constitution of the United States-Much stronger and much more efficient

That kinda blows that argument out of the water...

[Kiljan Arslan]

Thats where we disagree I feel that goverment can be efficent if it is large, however theres a point where it gets to large.

[El Brujo]

Thats where we disagree I feel that goverment can be efficent if it is large, however theres a point where it gets to large.

You don't even have to look at the government to get my point. Look at private corporations. If it is small and counts on every single customer to stay in business, then it will go out of its way to provide the best possible service for you the customer. Now look at a large corporation with thousands of customers. It doesn't need you, and it doesn't care if you take your business elsewhere. It still has to provide service decent enough to attract customers, but a single customer doesn't really matter.

Now look at the government as though it were a private corporation. It provides services in the form of law enforcement, welfare, infrastructure, etc. and you the customer pay for these services via taxes. Simple business. Now heres the problem: It doesn't care if you're happy because you can't take your business elsewhere and you must pay taxes. None of its customers matter because they have to do business with the government or be thrown in jail. The government, like any other business, will attempt to expand its services in order to increase its revenue from taxes. As it grows larger, it still doesn't care about customer satisfaction because it can still force them to deal with crappy service. This process inevitably continues until the people rise up and overthrow the government, thereby starting the whole process over again.

Articles on Confederation- weak and inefficient

Constitution of the United States-Much stronger and much more efficient

The AOC created fourteen governments who were all more or less equal in power. The Constitution reduced the number of sovereign governments to one. Under both systems the governments were fairly small, but the Constitution reduced the services provided by the thirteen while increasing the services provided by the one. This effectively reduced total government size and therefore made it more efficient. Don't forget forget that the Constitution also forced the states to lower the inter-state tariffs that had been crippling trade within the country.

So, to you, when a government is given a vast amount of completely new powers, it is not being made larger?

It didn't create new powers for the government, it just centralized the ones that already existed.

[Earl of Rochester]

It didn't create new powers for the government, it just centralized the ones that already existed

So interstate commerce laws existed before the creation of the constitution?