It seems the debate about how much government in America is based on economics really and not anything else. (Taxation and market). The term liberatarian have nothing to do with the general 'hand of the state' but rather with how the state handles money, your money, our money. Eg go to a liberatarian and he will tell you he doesn't like taxes but he will say that abortion is as pro-choice argument is illegal and unconstitutional. Thus the common alliance of business and religious right make sense in America.

So how much is too much or too little governance to you fellow American?

Hi

The attempt, -in the joining of business and religion,- could be a problem.

As both the government, and the church, are Divine Institutions. They are not one entity.
The one, the Church, if lived and believed in, will have a positive affect on it's practitioners.

The government would not have and effect on it's practitioners, as for as the institutions of the church are concern.

These two, are Divine institutions, yet, each with a different function, each though, having a positive affect, on all under it's religion, and all under it's government.

Business, is the benefit of both institutions working separately, yet in harmony.

Man is the benefactor. I think it's good for everyone. Norm

I don't think government is inherently bad like republicans do. We still don't have enough a large enough SEC for them to do their work properly. Same with FDA and I'm sure other government regulation orgs too.

Just give government agencies the same incentives as private orgs (comparable pay, raising a decent portion of their own money, clear oversight) and they are no worse than public organizations

The government should not own an automaker. I'm talking about GM.

Sounds like the government of Mexico. I'm kidding.

Do you have any problem with rule by oligarchy? I'm serious.

The American people are schizophrenic because they seek to pursue inconsistent objectives concurrently. They want to enjoy individual liberty, personal freedom, and autonomy from government interference and burdens. However, at the same time many Americans embrace the security of government dependency. The conundrum is how to be free and dependent at the same time. These objectives cannot be reconciled except in a social democracy with a rapidly expanding economy.

America wants to be a social democracy, but the time for Western social democracies may have come and gone. It was possible to establish a social democracy in Western European states after WWII, e.g., the Nordic Model, because the opportunity for rapid economic expansion was great. The conditions that permitted the creation of successful social democratic systems no longer obtain. Demographic factors and the competitive pressures of globalization will no longer permit Western social democracies to operate on a successful basis.

America will have a social democratic state begun under the auspices of Obama. But in the fullness of time that system will fail. Americans will be poorer and less free. They won't like it, but socialist systems are not capable of reform. They are only capable of collapse. A new paradigm is needed.

Lol republicans and some Americans just use the old adage of "freedom from government" as cover. big business republicans enjoyed the booming of their business thanks to government intervention, even in the time of bella epoch, right before ww1 when supposedly much less government intervention on business, there are actually a lot of government involved. think about about it also, without government and the strong arm of the government, American capitalism would not thrive AT ALL, who would have cleared all those Native Americans out to build rail roads, who would send in money and boots to latin america whenver a leftist regime decide to nationalize their plantations, or decide whether or not to annex a territory based on whether it will or not increase the competition on sugar beets (not indifferent to the way imperialism brought to Western European capitalism)? I mean recently even some agriculturalist lately been clamoring for their share of the stimulus money, many of whom were against it to begin with, saying that they were the people who made America today. Well even they throughout American history have had their share of American protectionism and hand outs.

What big business don't like is when they are taxed, and when there are certain regulations that make it a little harder for them to make more money. Some of the those consumers are brought to think the same way, in the same way slave holders in the Confederacy (which are very small portion of the southern armed forces) created for non-slave owners to die for their cause--wrap it in a nice slogan like "state's right" and they would buy that. I mean how do you say "small government" when you tell gays they can't marry? Or not shoving religion but putting the ten commandments in a public building? Or helping bail out their business buddies when they go south (McCain)? Or use their seat in office to win lawsuits (Lott)?

Dont' get me wrong I am not for massive government, but a lot of that is rhetorical in many ways the Democrats do, but on the flipside.

i have never met any european who view socialism or libertine values with disgust and contempt the way some americans can..

Americans always think that their government cannot run anything that it always screws up, wastes money and is generally awful compared to the private sector.. just look at this thread alone "How much is too much government??" n it shows up how they distrust their government inherently..

The funny thing is most industralised nations have governments that administer programmes that border on socialist reasonings -- health services, social and education programmes are well delivered and implemented.. they are not total eff-ups.

Yet, in the US, the idea that government cannot do anything right persists amongst some american people..

My question is : Why are Americans so bad at running their governments? Why is it as a people they are unable to run say for example, an universal health care system, something which every government in every other industralised nation is able to do?

When the gov't regulates how I hold my penis while I urinate, that is too much gov't.
When Tangawizi tells me how Americans thinks, that is too much bull crappy.

Gov't is there to provide rule and guidance for the masses.
Sometimes it gets it wrong ... and this is when a lot of attention is paid to gov't.
When gov't gets it right, hardly a head turns to notice the good that's been done.

Much like when the US of A goes to help another country ...
they say there goes the arrogant Americans ...
but, they get to say that from the safety of their own homes ...
if the Americans just had not intervened, they would be dead or refugees ...
Say what??????

My answer is:

The American political system has evolved into a chimera in which Big Government, Big Business, Big Labor, the Environmental Industry, the Tax Exempt Nonprofit Industry, et al., have become fused into an interwoven corporate style special interest mechanism using the coercive power of government to serve favored constituencies of the politically well connected instead of the common interest. People are losing faith in the existing order.

The EU states provide some measure of health care (if you like waiting in line), but can't defend themselves. Canada is an even bigger freeloader. You're comparing apples and oranges.

When the govt can fire or make threats to any company using tax payer money, then it's wrong.

Democrats, republicans, who ever the majority is will always be corrupt.

I didn't ask Obama to bail out all these companies with my money, Bush didn't help them in the last recession and we were ok, now why must Obama give away free money and make rich people even richer?

Everyone knows that connection but what is weird is how many sections of american citizenry (particularly the immigrants) would actually side with the Big Business lobby groups and politicos themselves, and condemn government intervention in areas such as healthcare..?



There are actually some public healthcare systems that are not bottomless pits in themselves... Canada has about 10-12% of their GDP in their public healthcare system, the USA spends around 16%, Singapore spends a mere 3.7%. I know it's a tiny island state, but it's not only a consumer driven healthcare system that works, but also the timely intervention of government policies to prevent over-treatment (which is what is bleeding the European public healthcare systems). It's definitely not a socialistic bottomless pit.

http://takingnote.tcf.org/2008/07/health-care-in.html

One of the world’s most successful health care systems is built on the principle that personal responsibility is good, but it has practical limits—and the understanding that when it comes to health care, more can easily become too much.

Half of my relatives are Canadians. I remember a beloved aunt from Edmonton, Alberta who was diagnosed with operable lung cancer. She took her place in the Canadian medical rationing line. She waited so long that by the time her turn came the cancer had become inoperable. She died. I turned against the Canadian model.

I wonder why no one has hammered u for taking a sole example and extrapolating that to the entire country...

We are all prisoners of time and space. We draw on our personal experiences in making decisions and reaching conclusions. From my experience I believe that the Canadian model of health care rationing doesn't work for the elderly who face a catastrophic health crisis. That is a sufficient flaw to discredit the system.

Why would no one hammer me? The answer should be obvious. I don't suffer fools gladly. You're the only long time member who screws around in my presence. Newbs sometimes screw around with me, but not for long.

Absolute minimum. And take absolute minimum in taxes.

Government should do things that meet all three requirements:
1) are known to require combining our resources
2) understood by all to be essential
3) difficult to happen voluntarily.

1)Requires combined resources:
Things that no individual can do or pay for on their own like Military, Fire, Police, street construction and repair.

2)Essentual to all:
Goverment action should affect all or most of the people. Helping only some is not right. The above Fire, police etc.. meets this requirement also.

3)Difficult/impossible without Gov involvement.
People get together all the time to do something that requires combining resources to meet some essential need. Like a wedding, planting rice in a paddy, church activities. etc... Gov involvement should happen when people can't get together and solve the problem by themselves. Again the examples are Fire, police etc..

Well, the main issue in the United states of America, is how much is technically legal (without amendments to the constitution that have not yet occurred).

The USA is not a single nation, but rather it is a union of sovereign states. At the time of the union, there was no federal military or anything of the sort, and there were no citizens of thefederal union, only citizens of various states (and the states were then in the union (usually), but only under the terms of the contract). There was no federal income tax or any such thing.

The point of the federal government was to allow for one single body to govern INTERSTATE TRADE. The USA "federal beast" as it is often referred to as, has used this clause of regulating interstate commerce to pretend it has jurisdiction over anything that moves between states (regardless of whether it is commercial trade or just physical moving of private property with the same owner). The federal government has also given final control of the nations economy to the Federal Reserve (a private institution), and written in to the social security law that anyone who enters the social security scheme (And so receives a social security number) has agreed contractually to pay the federal government a portion of their income, and that they agree to be bound by this for the rest of their lives even if they later renounce the social security scheme. Also all of the hospitals have taken it upon themselves to register all newborns for social security regardless of the parents consent.

And almost everything the government does today is based on de-facto principles that often contradict the highest form of law in the land. So yeah there is quite the controversy. But as the media will inform you, most of the people against that are just white trash from middle america and are to be hated because they are racist and the media tells you so and the like. Intellectuals with the "libertarian" viewpoint are a fairly recent thing that seem to have gained momentum with the internet (which has really only caught on in the last decade or so). The times are changing.

There are notable exceptions in history, such as Henry Ford and a few other s that I can't quite recall, but they were racist too (or so I have been told) so just ignore them, and continue with your prescribed programming.

Actually, something that happens in Amercia a lot is where one side of an argument refuses to prove their point of view, but instead just calls the opposition racist. That always gets them. And so the issues never get discussed openly (which I feel is what those in charge fear) because everyone is too afraid of what they may get called by a bunch of loud-mouthed brats.

^Highest law of the land?

But this wasn't agreed upon in 1787

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding" Article VI US Constitution

and affirmed in 1868

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."
Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution

Only interstate trade? Lol I don't know about that but here's a few that the federal government are to make laws in accordance to Article One, Section 8:

To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;—And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

all of which were ratified from 1787 to 1790 and all states oncoming to the Union since.

^flipcombatmedic, informational post. I won't quote that whole post as it is far too long, but don't you agree about the point of contention?

Technically speaking many states might as well secede out of the union as they are not bound by the agreement that has been violated, as has happened in the past.

If someone really wants to get into it, then you might want to wonder about the common law, the magna carta, and then that when the Americans fought against the British they did not want to renounce those laws that they were governed by and hence the bill of rights, a set of non-exclusive restrictions upon the federal government's power.

[EDIT] Actually as I dive into my information on this matter, I came upon a related resource that I would like to mention here. And that is "Michael Badnarik - Constitution Class". I loved this set of videos and I think that anyone who wants to get into this would do good to download them. So I will refer this to that.

Violated? It's not like state constitution aren't continously in contention of itself. For a constitution to be 'not violated' it has to evolve and that is why it has the Supreme Court to interpret, and the Legislative to amend. Otherwise we'd still be counting black people as 3/5ths of a person. The idiocy of strict originalism is stupid and not fit for a people who wish to have the kind of complex government that would last more than 200 years.

And as if most states aren't born of the foundation of the United States. There's only one state of the Union that was really independent and not established by those people coming from the US, that's Hawai'i. Only ones that come close are California and Texas, but even those were established by white Americans into Mexican territories based on American republicanism. In fact majority of the state's who got their 'statehood' was in more ways than one had a lot of help from the US Federal government, from clearing Indian tribes, to giving them weapons, providing forts and inducing settlers to funding the building of railroads, to subsidies and protectionism of crops and goods...

Most secessionist are idiots who think that they have created the wealth and prosperity that they enjoy without the central government.

Misleading, many of the states were fully functional colonies before independence war and federalization.

The mexico issue isn't like that at all. Not only did mexico accept a trade of ownership, but when they illegally fought back they were beaten.
So not only was the land acquired in a virtuous, mutually agreed manner, but even if some mexicans say that their leadership did not represent the will of the people, they "lost" it fair and square when they lost their war. Reconquista isn't a very laudable effort, especially when you consider what it was back then, and what it is now. I think that they should ask the people living there how they feel on the issue, and not decide for them.

Hawaii should probably be it's own nation now IMHO.

To a degree, independence is a positive thing, central control is a negative thing. Even as far back as an evolutionary point of view, this is the true case. So if they are personally idiots, then they are lucky to coincidentally support the smartest stance despite their individual stupidity. Although I'd say those that are prepared to go their own way in life are far cleverer than those who cling to a central figurehead. I wish them luck.

You are right, and I am guilty of something. I have latched onto various things as justification for what I see as right, but that isn't really fair as none of us were even alive back then. But by the same token, much of today's authority is questionable, and many today peruse the victimization protocol (especially blacks getting empowered over slavery). It is not a valid stance and so I will never take it again.

Like what? The 13 colonies? there's 37 others states you know. I mean from the Northwest Ordinance (which Congress basically creating new states out of the Midwest instead of annexing it to old states) to buying land from Spain, Russia, or France? The Articles of Confederation wasn't even able to propose taxes let alone have the power to do that. All of those Manifest Destiny territories are formed one way on another by the US Federal Government.

It's not clinging to the figure head the federal government basically leave a lot of legislation into the hands of the state (how much tint you can have in your window, whether you can smoke pot medicinally, to create jobs by forcing people to pay extra for pumpers in Oregon). This 'independence' is quiet abundant if you actually get off the thinking that the 'Feds' actually regulate much of your laws, when there statutes vary from city to city. The problem with them is thinking just because they want to expedite the process by sending all their decisions into their state assemblies, which most of the time ask for federal giveaways to fund projects, they think that the federal government is their for their disadvantage.

Like Texas clamoring for fencing the border: who pays for the border patrol and stuff? Who handles the paper work when you bring in your Russian order brides; imagine if all the paper works and processes were different in each state, how inefficient and stupid.

This 'negativity' and 'clinging to central figure' is brought to you by people who don't see the things done and created by having a central government. I say if Vermont and Texas want to secede, let these b!tches go and let them deal with US tariffs, border security, and foreign affairs.

Seriously??? You'd like to see the United States split into several states???????? That's happening alot in the European countries lately, just see the UK with their autonomous governments of Scotland, Ireland... or Spain with their autonomous provinces like Catalunya and Basque country? Not to mention the Eastern European states all trying to break free of Moscow's grip... The same $hit in India's Kashmir and China's Xinjiang provinces..

Well, if America does go that way, it may be the dawn of enlightenment on their ruling establishment...

Why do you have so much hate on America????

Gosh! Looks who's sensitive???

Juz look at the map of america during election times, the country was divided and it still is.. on so many levels... why wouldn't secessionist states be an enlightening experience for all americans???

Don't give me that crap ...
You do the same when we start to talk about Singapore that way too.