One thing I completely missed when I last looked at your post: when I said "exactly my point" to Zeality's post, I was referring to Zeality's last line:
Well, not sure where I was going with that, but I think what I mean to say is that we aren't talking blank check GOVERNMENT IN UR LIFE KILLIN UR RIGHTS versus THE LOOT IS ON FIRE. We can pinpoint what private does better and can do, and what public does better and must do.
I did not quote that line and thus caused confusion. My apologies.
Now, as promised, I will exposit on the ideas I considered:
1. A combined government/corporate welfare system. Think the way the Postal Service is partially privatized, with the government generally running things from a funding standpoint but with private corporations providing the management and efficiency. While this is probably the best way to run universal healthcare--an absolute necessity for our nation, since with current insurance rates it would be far cheaper on the whole to pay through taxes than to pay for insurance--it is not the best way to run welfare.
2. Completely outsourced to the private sector: this is probably the worst idea because welfare would turn into a joke, much like our current healthcare system.
3. Private savings accounts, a la Bush's plan to "save" Social Security: also a bad idea because it not only relies upon one being able to net a job and donate enough of what they make from that job into a savings account in the first place--which is almost never going to happen for those who take low-income jobs such as fast food jobs--it could severely limit those even with much higher-income jobs and leave lots of people hanging.
So, this is why I prefer something purely government run. If necessary, I am willing to bring in some private management, but I am hesitant to do so because I do not entirely trust such management for an issue like this. Do not mistake this for complete trust in the government on this either...I am simply more willing to trust those I can elect and vote out of office than those I cannot. Call it a case of extra security on who is in charge.
Many of those things are excellent ideas. None of them inherently require a move toward smaller government. In fact, most of them require bigger government. (Not true either)
Exactly. What they require is an efficient government. People seem to have this idea in their head that a government has to be small to be efficient, and that simply is not true in all instances, though it does occasionally. It all depends on what specific parts we are trying to make efficient.
Item 1: Only a government with teeth and a long arm can keep aggressive mega corporations in line. It isn't the government that kills small business. It's big business that kills small business.
Indeed. Corporations will freely abuse their power if given free reign. On that same token, let us not give said government too many teeth, lest we have the same situation on our hands.
Item 2: An end to the war on drugs would be great, since we lost that particular war as soon as we declared it. But it has nothing to do with making the government smaller. Less invasive, perhaps.
Aye. It was foolish from the start. What would make a hell of a lot more sense is to legalize most of these drugs--though keep some of the more artificial ones, such as crystal meth, illegal--and start regulating them. Tax them and use at least some of the funds to help pay for any potential medical problems that result. You create a new industry, save billions of dollars each year and bring in new income, provide new jobs when it comes to domestic growth, cultivation, and creation of the drugs collapse the black market, and keep those who use such drugs safer because through regulation we can prevent doping of some drugs with harder drugs, overdoses, and so on and so forth. It's all nice and tidy and everyone wins..
Item 3: An end to the war in Iraq would be great also, since a whole lotta people are dead now because of it--not least of which is America's reputation--and all for nothing. But, again, ending the war doesn't require that we make the government smaller. Less militaristic, perhaps.
Aye. The war was a bad idea from the start. While Saddam Hussein is no angel by any means, he was probably our best bet for some kind of reliable ally in the Middle East. He was a secularist, and more than that, he sat on the Pandora's Box of Chaos and kept things in line. Women had a lot more freedom on the whole under his regime than they do now, certainly. By taking him out we destroyed the one thing keeping all of those groups that hate each other there from killing each other. It's our fault.
Unfortunately, we do not have the manpower necessary to get it under control, as it would require five times the number of troops we have in the region right now, and as I last recall, we're so strained that we've been sending people on third and fourth tours of duty with barely any sort of downtime. We've even been sending injured soldiers back out there.
So all we can do now is withdraw and let the Iraqis handle the situation on their own. Eventually one group will gain power and take everything over, and maybe--just maybe--get things under control, at which time we should establish diplomatic relations with this group in power and do what we can to try to reform things from there. The more we delay from taking this course of action, the more lives we sacrifice for nothing.
Item 4: Tax reform is a great idea! But reforming the tax code doesn't mean collecting fewer taxes.
Reforming the tax code means simplifying the tax laws, and by doing so we may find we are collecting fewer taxes on the whole, especially if we're cutting funding in certain areas, such as fighting the War on Drugs or the war in Iraq.
Item 5: A balanced budget is something we desperately need. And I'd even support a great deal of spending cuts to get there. We can start by slashing corporate welfare, rehabilitating our military, and going electronic, just to name a few things. We also need to jack up taxes on the rich, but that's another story. In any case, the prerequisite of a balanced budget is not a smaller government, nor is the reverse true.
Indeed. We need a balanced budget more than ever with rampant unchecked spending by the Bush administration going full on without looking back. As for how? Well, you mentioned several items worthy of note, such as slashing corporate welfare, and restructering our military, though I have no idea what you mean by going electronic. Are you referring to eliminating paperwork in the sense of papers and conducting such business through computers?
Raising taxes on the rich is a good idea, but so is lowering taxes on the poorer masses. I again suggest my method that combines a national sales tax with Keynesian scaled income tax, where we only tax the income of those who earn upper-middle class and above incomes, as they can afford to have such tax come from their incomes a lot easier than others.
Of course, even if you had done so you still would have lost, because small government went extinct like the dodo and it ain't coming back. The Democrats aren't going to revive it. The Republicans sure as hell aren't going to revive it. And the Libertarians would half-destroy society and get killed in the elections before their plans ever came to their dreadful conclusion.
Indeed, indeed, and oh CERTAINLY indeed. Hopefully we're seeing the end of big government as well, and the dawn of efficient government, which should be the goal of all, where size is irrelevant.
The reason we don't leave the people to change their own diapers is that shit stinks.
I think he was trying to use it as a metaphor for not doing anything ourselves but just letting the government provide for us all the time, which we should never allow to happen. It's what I interpreted from his statement, and I agree with it. On that same token I don't want the government or society completely abandoning everyone either. As I said before, as sentient beings we have a duty and a responsibility to help each other whenever possible.
