Libya Superthread

The state isn't an entity separate from the populace. Our federal legislative branch must be directly elected; I admit we maybe could benefit from some Electoral College reform, however.

Yeah the Electoral College was good for the time period when it was created, but not necessarily now.

Far more separate than it needs to be, and with far too much power.

Let me give you a simplified version of how larger and more distant governments are less effective: There was a pothole in my neighborhood recently. All the roads in my neighborhood are maintained by the HOA, which is controlled by people living within 1/4 a mile of the pothole. We'll call this the neighborhood "government." The people who control the "government" in my neighborhood have to deal with the pothole as long as it is here. It is a reality every day for them, not just a theoretical problem. The pothole was fixed almost immediately.

In my state there are a LOT of potholes because of our regular and severe temperature fluctuations and because our roads are simply poorly maintained. One of them I have avoided on my drive every day for a year. The complaints about our roads have been constant, but my state's leadership is hundreds of miles away. The problems of this part of the state is, for them, largely theoretical. Their biggest issue is the complaints attached to these distant potholes. They finally got around to fixing it... after about a year.

Well money and manpower also affect which roads are fixed and when and more important roads take priority.

Really oversimplified an bad example. A larger government with more employees would have been better in the state problem then the local problem.

That makes no sense. The larger the government the farther away the people who are supposed to fix the problem, the more steps a simple problem has to go through to be solved. In the case of the HOA, its a VERY local problem from a VERY small "government." The repair was very quick because the chain of command to the people ultimately responsible is incredibly short. The state took a long time to fix the same problem very nearby to my neighborhood because the government is very far away, has many many more responsibilities, and has very different priorities.

But that's just it. My state's priorities are different than my priorities, and so my very local "government" (the HOA) was more effective in catering to my immediate needs because it was closer to me and was much more locally concerned. It also has less responsibilities. So we can see, the smaller the government (in both geography and purview), the more effective the response within its areas of responsibility.

Basically, a smaller government is more concerned with the issues its citizens are experiencing on a daily basis and is more effective in addressing these issues because it is closer and has less responsibility.

Well they take care of the matters of the whole state not just your area and they can't solve everyone's problem at once.

Yeah but then again, that was only one pothole in one small community. Could that community then, with its small power, take care of the pothole problems of the entire state.

I literally just said the exact same thing. Twice. Thank you for agreeing with me, a smaller and more local government is more effective in addressing the issues of its citizens.

Of course not. My point is that many small and localized governments is more effective than one large and sluggish one in most tasks.

The rebels will probably make huge gains in the battlefield now that there are severe gas shortages.

How would a small government take care of the problem?

In the HOA: A member of the HOA sees a pothole. It's irksome. He brings it up at the HOA meeting. Others voice their irritation. A contractor is called to fix the issue. The pothole is patched.

In the state: A constituent sees a pothole. It's irksome. He (and many others) calls his representative in the state senate. The state senate convenes. They are busy arguing over other things that they have decided are their responsibility (immigration, state holidays, convention centers) and do not get around to the potholes. The next time the state senate convenes they manage to find time, but can't agree on where to start (everyone wants their district to be served first) and so the areas with the most representatives (and the highest population) are served first because they have the most votes. They form a committee to decide on how the potholes will be fixed. The committee deliberates to work out the details of the project. They decide on a contractor after much deliberation not because of best value, but because of the district the contractor is from (as a pay off to a particular senator). When the potholes are finally fixed it is much much later and has involved much more money per pothole, many more people, and a much longer chain of command.

Your using a VERY specific example of when a small, local government is more useful than a larger government. Of coarse local problems should be dealt with by local governments. Who says local governments wouldn't exist as part of a larger state/national government? An effective government would be more organized and regulate local matters to local governments.

It's just an example, but it holds true with many many things. The exceptions are very few. Large governments tend to be incredibly slow, expensive, and easily corruptible. This is because they have a lot of concentrated authority, a large bureaucracy full of red tape, and a whole lot of pork. Because of this, the federal government must have as few roles as possible.

Also, your constant talk of an "effective government" seems to rely very heavily upon the willingness of a large government to be self-limiting.

Again, I'm not arguing FOR large government. I'm arguing against small government. Also, a government doesn't need to be "self-limiting" if voters would keep it in check. We give them their jobs in the first place. A government like ours is more susceptible corruption when voters are more apathetic about what our government does, which is what has been happening for a while. Voting has devolved into team sport where you choose a side and only agree to what your side proposes.

It is one or the other. Either power should be as local and decentralized as possible or it shouldn't. Get off of the fence. You are, for all intensive purposes, in favor of a large government with a broad geographical jurisdiction.

How do you suppose that the voters would keep their government in check? By electing someone who wants to be part of the state but promises to limit the power of the state? That has simply never worked. Elected representatives hold all the power once they are in, and they tend to give themselves more power (always have). More power happens to be the one thing the parties tend to agree on. You're essentially advocating sending a wolf to defend the sheep. Unfortunately we also have to count on the same wolves to decide to give back a huge portion of the power they have already granted themselves so that it cannot be abused by future wolves. It's a tight spot.

I don't like parties any more than you do, but if you think that polarization from parties is new you are kidding yourself. It's been going on since the debates within George Washington's cabinet.

If its going to be the best government, then yes, I am for a large government.

Edit: I don't know where I'm going with this anymore. My original point was that voters should seek to improve the government, not just shrink it and hope that that makes it better. This thread needs to get back on-topic.

The only real argument I'm getting from you is, "I like what works." with no statement as to what, in your opinion, works. So please, lay it all out for me. What is your ideal government? What does Big J think will work? What are the legitimate roles of government? How should tasks be delegated? How will you fund this government?

Sure, voters should seek to improve the government... but a shrinking government is much easier for the voters to control. I agree that we need to get back on topic, though. Perhaps I'll make a new thread for the above question.

Edit: I just noticed something. Link, the guy who initially attacked me and started this whole debate, never posted here beyond the initial insult... guess he never did come up with a coherent argument. Funny.

Yes, likely so. Especially considering that the government's top officials seem to have begun abandoning ship.

I'll just quote what Mayor Emanuel said in the "Role of Government" thread, since it's pretty in-line with my beliefs. I guess I do believe in a large government.

Lets move it over to that thread where I will address that quote in full.