The Big Government/ Small Government Debate

[Jumbo]

Good point buzz. Even if there were a desire for government to emulate a big corporation fully (and to me there shouldn't be) it can't be done. They are two different animals. So that part of the topic suggests it's a matter of deciding what desirable characteristics we might want to take from the private sector and try to use. It's a big part of my OP topic to point out that a "big" management population (government if you will) in a really big corporation OR just a big organization (take US Army, Alcoholics Anonymous, or the Red Cross for example) is not an inherently bad deal in and of itself, and "small" is not necessarily desirable or even possible. In a number of our overworn political mantras, the very phrases so fervently used are seriously off-target.

[Prosperity]

http://harrybrowne.org/articles/Prin...Government.htm
1: Government is force.

6. Government doesn't work. Because government is force, because government programs are designed to enrich the politically powerful, because you can't control government and make it do what's right, because every new government program soon wanders from its original purpose, and because politicians eventually misuse the power you give them, it is inevitable that no government program will deliver on the promises the politicians make for it.

For years, I've asked listeners during radio interviews to name a government program that has actually delivered on its promises, and no one has been able to do so.

If you think there's a successful government program, you probably don't know how much it actually costs, aren't aware of all its destructive side-effects, have no idea how easily and inexpensively such a thing could be done outside of government, and/or are basing your view of its success on political propaganda.

It doesn't matter whether a program is supposed to do something you want or something you don't want, whether the program is something you consider a proper function of government or something beyond its limits. It won't work. Government programs always wind up disappointing you.

just because they disappoint, doesn't mean they don't work

all in all, I don't have to worry about getting shot or robbed. I don't have to bribe anyone or worry about extortion. I can get from point A to point B reliably and efficiently. I'm sure the elections aren't rigged. I am pretty sure that if some sections of the government wanted to **** me over, (or somebody else) that there would at least be a few whistle blowers.

There are a lot of structural problems, but the only deadly problem I see with our government is that representatives are so seperated from their constituencies, that special interests and their TV ad $$$ can decide elections. But I'm not so sure how to fix that, or if it's a long term problem.

[Jumbo]

Perhaps you should focus on the benefits that national politics offers (fame, power)... those two lures can attract some shady people. I know I'm going to sound like a douche when I say this, but I am sincerely and strongly prejudiced against anyone that wants to run for office, because it's been a really good predictor of who is a douche and not. Again I am hypocritical in this respect because I'm lured to those things, well I don't think for fame, but for the power definitely.

I think those are indeed part of the discussion as I stated earlier in different words. But as far as what "I should focus on" , I have done plenty of focusing so far in this young thread and now I am going to focus on going out for the rest of the evening and screwing off .

And you don't sound like a douche to me, just a little jaded, and maybe part of being 24 and you being you (not playing the age card, just saying that the developmental stage one is in does play a role in worldview for most people).

[Prosperity]

I think those are indeed part of the discussion as I stated earlier in different words. But as far as what "I should focus on" , I have done plenty of focusing so far in this young thread and now I am going to focus on going out for the rest of the evening and screwing off .

All I was getting at is that there is a ton of competition for these positions, so there is no shortage in the supply of people who would want them.. and I since competence and vanity/pride aren't mutually exclusive there should be plenty of people who are both competent and attracted to those jobs. But the current filters don't seem to favor competence too much (at least as far as elections... competence is good at getting people to vote for you, not necessarily good at governance) so at the end of the day we may just have better paid idiots.

now, screw off

[alexey]

That's not really fair. I promote smaller government and I "pick up **** after my dog" and generally try to take care of myself without relying someone else to do it for me (which is what I think you were implying. Sorry if I misunderstood.)

No problem, sorry if I was too harsh. I just really have a sore spot for non-specific policy proposals.

Tell me what you think the government should or should not do, how it should or should not do it, and then we can talk. Be specific. Otherwise your good intentions will inevitably be hijacked by the poopers.

[Rdskns2000]

Frankly, the time has come to split up the U.S. We're just to damn big. Split up the Red and Blue States in 3 or 4 different countries and let these new countries would then have smaller governments.

[Burgold]

The SEC used to work.

The problem with government agencies is not that they exist. The problem is how they get twisted by the political winds. On the debate thread, the argument became that since FEMA was ineffective during Katrina, it obvioulsy does not work, it should be scrapped, and disaster reflief should be farmed out to the private sector or something. But FEMA - historically - has worked. When it was underfunded and run by a moron, it failed.

This is part of my answer although I don't know that I've completely thought it through.

I think with a country as complex as this one you need to have a fairly big government, but the question is really about the strength of it. For example, the EPA and the FDA are pretty weak. They're underfunded and understaffed and have been historically because of that they are not always as good a watchdog as they need to be which of course creates a spiral. People claim the underfunded group isn't doing a good job because they didn't catch X or let Y slip by and then use it as an excuse to further defund the organization which makes it even harder for them to monitor or screen everything that they should. This leads to more complaints and frustrations about said groups both from its detractors and supporters.

It's a pretty popular strategy. When one side doesn't like something... they reduce its funding and then complain that the program isn't doing what it's supposed to.

Now, on the other hand, there are some organizations that are so strong that they get fat, corrupt, or lazy. These are the ones that need to be scrutinized though all have to be measured for their effectiveness and which programs are necessary, productive, or effective.

I think it would be an interesting flip if you asked people whether they wanted a "strong" government versus a "weak" one though because in some respects that's what the "big" versus "small" is really supposed to be about.

[SnyderShrugged]

I think I often am guilty of using the term “small government” a bit too loosely and as a misnomer.
I usually use the term meaning a reference to scope and scale of government rather than physical size. As many men claim, “size doesn’t matter”.
I have spent the last 15 years in my professional life working n the fields of operational excellence, Process/continuous improvement, Six Sigma and Lean.
In that work, I have learned the value of addressing a problem at its root cause and in breaking the hold of traditions and the “that’s the way its done” mindset of leaders.
If I were consulting government around solving problems, I would use a standard methodology of first understanding the size, scope and frequency of an issue, gaining the perspective and pain of the problem from the customers (the individual citizens) eyes, then understanding how the problem is measured and if the measurement system is good, then analyze for root cause.
To me, we fall down in the approach to Federal problem solving by not employing this methodology. We rarely look at the current processes in the mindset that they might be the root cause, and often end up trying to rearrange the deck chairs of the titanic rather than avoiding the iceberg to begin with.
If a Federal program, even a big one, is delivering consistent positive results that are measured in a rational way, and have been consistent over time in terms of variation and results, I’d have little issue with it. My caveat is that ALL customers (citizens) have their criteria met for success and not just some.