Any specifics? "Limit the size of government" is a trite platitude that anyone could agree with on some level. Shove 100 random people in a room and you have 200 conflicting ideas about the appropriate role of government.
M-x libertopians-vs-lefties
It will be a lot easier to pretend the bot is human if it refuses to talk on other topics. And politics on the internet is a horse beaten to a smooth pulp, so the bot could have a HUGE library to search for both question and argument.
A sincere implementation could actually educate a lot of people. Not change their stance, but elevate their arguments.
Mindless it may seem because of no resulting action 99% of the time, but the same can be said of pre-flight engine tests.
Terrible analogy. If engines were intelligent beings constantly plotting and trying to fail, no one would dare fly, no matter how many pre-flight checks there were.
All large organizations, not just government, have a clear and strong tendency to grow.
The sad fact is, there is no good solution. Switzerland's direct democracy might be one, however:
1. Switzerland is tiny.
2. What are the chances the US, or any other country, will radically reconfigure its constitution and system of government.
A more realistic scenario is what has happened in other places. Like in the UK in the 1970s or Sweden in the early 19th century. Government grows so big and inefficient that a radical shrinking of it is forced upon everyone. It is an ugly and painful process and occasionally goes horribly wrong. But it's pretty much the only proven way governments have significantly shrunk in the real world.
I am assuming this is hyperbole, but if it isn't, it should be noted that politicians aren't trying to blow up the systems they govern. No elite is. The situation where short-term interests systematically countermand long-term interests results from a mis-alignment of incentives in the system; it is nothing germane to government.
All large organizations...have a tendency to grow
Actually, no. They empirically tend to evaporate away. Most organisations have a desire to grow.
Switzerland
I'm Swiss, and yes, I agree that we have a damn good system of governance :). But it is very nuanced moderated democracy that exists in a specific environment. I am not so sure it would work in a more heterogenous society; we are having terribly xenophobic reactions to our Muslim minority.
The demands of Government are not the same as they were in 1787. Instead of 4M people living in relative isolation we now have 310M people participating in a global economy.
Personally I want a Government than provides the necessary infrastructure and regulatory environment for a modern economy....
Yow!
If yes, it might be small or large. If no, then it must be small.
http://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/gove...
It would not have been more clear to phrase it as the following:
""" > It's about small government vs. large government when it should be about good government, regardless of size
But the problem is that large government, by the very fact of its scope and size, involves itself too much in the lives and business of its citizens. The proper role of government is to mediate in the conflicts that arise between the rights and desires of its citizens, striving to best protect those rights and the liberty of each individual while constraining that liberty and the pursuit of individual and collective well being as little as possible. Thus, smaller government is better government.
The problems arising from expansive government powers and the desirability of strictly limiting government power are explored extensively in various writings of the founders of the American Republic. """
(and note the "attr." is "attributed to")
I'd be more interested in seeing specific reasons why that sentiment would be true in this particular case, and not just statements of arbitrary opinion or faith. Otherwise it just adds noise and informs no one.
Maybe you think differently but I find that I'm not likely to learn anything from a trite aphorism and I also am inclined to believe that trading trite aphorisms is not a way to engage in discussion that will make any kind of progress for anyone involved other than a contest of which chorus can neigh and bleat the longest.
It'd be ideal if a couple of laws could be passed to limit or restrict the power of the government to regulate markets, intervene in private matters other than property rights and (to an extent) citizen protection (don't let them get as big as the TSA is, for instance), etc.
The problem is the federal government has ignored the constitution the last 80 years. And the people/states haven't cared enough to do anything.
it won't be the government searching your laptop, it will be the airline, as part of a conglomerate that includes media companies.
government exists for a reason. you need to fix it, not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Government is force. Airlines, like most businesses, are subject to market forces. If Delta said "we have to search the data on your computer before you can fly", you can choose not to fly. Someone would have a strong incentive to provide a mode of travel that did not involve laptop searches.
I didn't say "no government". I said "small government". There's a difference. You need the force of government to protect property rights, and to enforce contracts, for example.
Markets are inefficient. Many products and services are inelastic. People will consume them while hating the companies that provide them. It was government, not market forces, that forced companies to stop making kids pajamas out of inflammable material. When people heard that Ford was letting people die in its Pinto rather than recall them because it was cheaper, did people stop buying Ford? I wish it was so simple.
The plain fact is that if you look at the richest countries in the world, with the best standards of living, they have huge governments that provide their citizens with a host of services without profit, such as healthcare.
Actually, they did.
And, interestingly enough, the Pinto tradeoff decision in question came from a govt decision. Safety costs money. Ford asked the US govt "how much is a life worth" and the relevant design decision used a higher value.
Price matters. Some folks are alive because they traded in an older less safe car for a Pinto. Some of them couldn't have done that if Pintos cost more.
But your inclusion of government raises a good point. You're right. In the US, government is really just an extension of the corporations. It stopped being true democratic government, representing the people, long ago. So why not reduce that inefficiency and just be honest about it?
Stop, no, but sales did change significantly and Ford changed its tradeoffs.
It's unclear what would satisfy you other than regulation ....
My point about this govt involvement was that govt isn't the rational actor required by all of these schemes. Govt said "a life is worth X" but when someone acts on that and there's some backlash, govt says "oh no, you're wrong". Either defend the original number or say "you're right, we were wrong".
Regulators should be liable.
You seem to be trying to imply a cause and effect relationship here, without actually saying that. I'm sure we can find examples of rich countries with small governments, and poor countries with large governments.
Also, for rich countries with large governments, which came first? Did they become rich, then grow large governments, or did they get a large government, and then become rich? I would guess that the former is more typical than the latter.
Ah, so you're admitting that the US govt provides "free healthcare". (The US is one of the richest countries.)
> It was government, not market forces, that forced companies to stop making kids pajamas out of inflammable material.
Actually, it wasn't. It was publicity. Yes, there's a law now, but the market demand changed first.
Look at Europe, it's big government. There's less corruption, less lobbying. Some places pay high salary and do get less bribery. Mostly it's more transparency.
if a teeny weeny government has power over conglomerates, then it is worth a lot of money, and can be just as corrupt as what we have now. so what you are suggesting doesn't solve the problem. the only way "small" fixes the problem with buying influence is if power is reduced.
An absolute monarch, or more likely, his ministers, can get away with almost anything, because they easily find some basis to kill off anyone objects. Corruption under Roman emperors make our worst corporations look like public philanthropies.
The Founders put paid to all this excitement by 1) insisting all power be exercised by elected or appointed officials and 2) splitting up government power so much it just wasn't fun any more.
Today, "smaller" == "less corrupt" because "smaller" reduces returns on political investment. Congress currently manages, through spending or regulation, something like two-thirds of our economy. If they managed something like one-third, the friendship of a Congressman would be dramatically less valuable. And smaller == more transparent, because it's easier to to observe and distinguish the activities within a smaller, less complicated enterprise.
EDIT: Can't find a rebuttal on Wikipedia? Go read some books.
Still, if we can bank online, we can vote online. I see nothing stopping a proposal where if 25% of the public vote online, the result is accepted over what Congress voted. No advertising allowed. Suddenly, bribing/lobbying Congress would no longer make sense.
>Rimmer poses as a true democrat, insisting that the people should always have their way, hence the consultation on important matters – such as any new tax – with the public at large.
>Whenever a question arose for determination a red light and loud buzzer would come on and not go off until the household had voted on whatever question appeared on the television screen.
>But Rimmer was a meglomaniacal schemer. He made more and more issues matters for referendum questions. After a while the population got thoroughly fed of having their lives incessantly disrupted. So he posed a final referendum question – that all future questions should be decided by him. The masses voted Yes
It would have to be a high percentage (maybe even a true population majority, not just a voter majority). We certainly have the technology to make that happen now.
I'm still not sure we wouldn't wind up with the federal version of California, though.
The idea behind the website is a nice one. I hope they are successful. The website itself is quite nicely done.
Either you have an elected government which makes the law, or the decision about how to behave is made by individual interests and resources, which are much easier to buy or otherwise influence than elected representatives.
You're ignoring the diversity of individual choice plus the information problem.
I've yet to hear of a politican, technocrat, or bureaucrat who can do a better job deciding for me. To be fair, they don't have the information.
Feel free to delegate decisions wrt your resources as you see fit, but leave me out of it.
The way to fight corruption is by fighting corruption, not by giving us things like the Citizens' United ruling (which is in fact less government, yet eminently more bribable).
I'm not sure that trying to emulate the [other] wealthiest countries is the best of goals. Doesn't that ensure that we will be, optimally, second best? Given that corruption is endemic everywhere, including those other wealthy countries, isn't it worthwhile to strive for something better?
Outlaw political campaign advertising
That's just another way of saying "Throw out the 1st Amendment and outlaw freedom of speech". That is throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
allow the people to better represent themselves using technology.
What makes you think that the electorate as a whole can do any better. Consider the rampant ignorance of the issues in our voting today. And on top of that, most people aren't simply ignorant, but just plain wrong about matters of statistics and economics. I'm inclined to believe that the result would be far worse.
You don't have to mimic, but it does give a very strong indication that size of government isn't the problem.
[Outlaw political campaign advertising is] just another way of saying "Throw out the 1st Amendment and outlaw freedom of speech".
Nice try. No, this is "access to media." And currently it's controlled by the wealthy when it should be more democratically controlled.
What makes you think that the electorate as a whole can do any better.
That's funny, because the entire history of the world has been a ruling class not wanting to give up power because they don't "trust" the commoners, when all evidence has been that the greater the democracy, the greater the success. You can take the king; I'll take the people, every time.
Not necessarily. It may be that size of government is a problem, but those other countries have encountered a different bottleneck before reaching it.
Nice try. No, this is "access to media."
If you're saying that I won't be allowed to put up a billboard saying "Senator Smith is a rat", or take out a newspaper ad saying the same, then you have shot the 1st Amendment squarely between the eyes.
all evidence has been that the greater the democracy, the greater the success. You can take the king; I'll take the people, every time.
I think you're arguing in circles. For one thing, there are still a lot of monarchies in the world, many of them quite free.
But more important, the entire point that you're arguing against is (if you'll excuse me for paraphrasing; I hope I'm not making a strawman): "It seems to me that the real solution is to dramatically limit the size of government, so that there is nothing to be bought"
That is, the top post in this thread wants to strip away the power of government, and allow people to make their own decisions (including using the power of the market to constrain the action of corporations seen to be doing bad things).
But you seem to be saying that in this case people cannot be trusted, so we need to give additional power to the government to constrain runaway corporations, and in particular to keep those very same corrupt politicians from selling out.
This is self-contradictory in two ways:
First, you've said on the one hand that you'll take power away from the government and vest it in the people, "every time" -- yet in order to support this, you're proposing that we do just the opposite (i.e., prevent people from voicing their opinions as widely as they feel warranted).
Second, you're postulating that the politicians are corrupt and can't be trusted. Yet your solution relies on giving them more power to limit our political behavior. It seems like you're giving them our weapons while telling them "use these guns to ensure that you don't shoot us".
Second, when you talk about "reducing government" what you mean is to shift it from the people to the private sector. Government is the people. That's the definition. It needs to be managed. But moving it to the private sector just makes it for-profit instead of non-profit, and opens up a whole new can of worms.
Again, look around. Countries with the highest standards of living are not struggling with this. Their large governments are not a problem, and in fact could be nicely argued to have provided that high standard of living.
No, it doesn't. Keep the things that work for us, and then take a look at the things that we're having problems with (lobbying, healthcare) and steal any solutions that look better.
Just because Apple stole the GUI from Xerox didn't mean they had to steal Xerox's business plan for it, or their management structure. And I don't think anyone's claiming they wound up 2nd best to Xerox.
The largest governments: Soviet Union, Third Reich, North Korea, etc.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-december-13-2011/exclu... http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-december-13-2011/exclu... http://lessig.org/content/av/
US doesn't have too many bribery prosecutions not because there's so little corruption, but because it's all legal.
It seems to me that the real solution is to dramatically limit the size of government, so that there is nothing to be bought, rather then just changing the currency used to make the purchase.