It's not really possible. Even an anarchist like me has to realistically understand that running such a large country takes a certain amount of oversight. I want it to be as unobtrusive as possible, but we can't survive as a country without it.I hear the term all the time but I don't think I've heard it explained. How small of a government would it take to run a country with hundreds of millions of people?
A small federal government became obsolete with FDR and his massive federal programs which has continued to grow. When we crossed the line from a rural society to an urban one, there was no choice but to have an expansive federal government. Although I think a small federal government means different things to different people. With 350 million people, there’s no way to go back to a small federal government with little to no influence in a person’s daily life. I think the big difference is today with a large federal government we expect government to solve our problems whereas in a small federal government, we attempted to solve our problems ourselves. My take. But there’s no going back. This country is too large, too many people, too urbanized, to use to government solving our problems or at least attempting to. To providing safety nets and other programs which weren't there pre-FDR.I hear the term all the time but I don't think I've heard it explained. How small of a government would it take to run a country with hundreds of millions of people?
We could easily get by on 50% of the current military budget.But it's so corrupt. The revolving door of ex- government officials getting jobs with defence contractors spins faster than the door of the first year Trump White House.
Harry S. Truman made his name as a senator investigating and castigating crooked defence contractors during WWII. Mr. we could use a man like Harry Truman again.
A small federal government became obsolete with FDR and his massive federal programs which has continued to grow. When we crossed the line from a rural society to an urban one, there was no choice but to have an expansive federal government. Although I think a small federal government means different things to different people. With 350 million people, there’s no way to go back to a small federal government with little to no influence in a person’s daily life. I think the big difference is today with a large federal government we expect government to solve our problems whereas in a small federal government, we attempted to solve our problems ourselves. My take. But there’s no going back. This country is too large, too many people, too urbanized, to use to government solving our problems or at least attempting to. To providing safety nets and other programs which weren't there pre-FDR.
The thing is we have outgrown our old agrarian society where a small and perhaps a do-nothing federal government was feasible. Today, it’s not. One needs to adjust to the changing circumstances and needs of the country and its people.
I hear the term all the time but I don't think I've heard it explained. How small of a government would it take to run a country with hundreds of millions of people?
Our collective police spending is double that of Russia's military budgetWe could easily get by on 50% of the current military budget.
Mass surveillance. Ever notice how some bills have ironic names? The Patriot Act was the least patriotic piece of legislation passed in my lifetime.For me the kind of small government I care about is mostly government power. I don't especially care about government services. What I worry about is state power to control people's lives or powers that would make it hard to change the government. So I don't really care about, say, Social Security (in fact I think it is a good thing) but I care strongly about mass surveillance.
For me the kind of small government I care about is mostly government power. I don't especially care about government services. What I worry about is state power to control people's lives or powers that would make it hard to change the government. So I don't really care about, say, Social Security (in fact I think it is a good thing) but I care strongly about mass surveillance.
I hear the term all the time but I don't think I've heard it explained. How small of a government would it take to run a country with hundreds of millions of people?
Something I've struggled with as well. Clearly, the US does a relatively strong and coordinated national organization to survive. Nobody will ever support abolishing the state if there is even a chance that their quality of life will deteriorate.It's not really possible. Even an anarchist like me has to realistically understand that running such a large country takes a certain amount of oversight. I want it to be as unobtrusive as possible, but we can't survive as a country without it.
I'm 23. I knowYou're young right? You're in the demographic who will get absolutely screwed by SS
Yes but only because I'm cocky enough that I feel like I could get better returns through investing. Social Security would collapse if that was an option. It would be horrible.Suppose you were given the choice to opt out of the SS payroll tax, and keep the money for yourself. Would you take it?
Russia spends less than a tenth what we do on our military.Our collective police spending is double that of Russia's military budget
We barely even need a military.
I agreeSomething I've struggled with as well. Clearly, the US does a relatively strong and coordinated national organization to survive. Nobody will ever support abolishing the state if there is even a chance that their quality of life will deteriorate.
I think the best way forwards is just to generally combat nationalism and push towards a more direct democracy. I view anarchism and socialism as more a direction to head in than a destination.
Looking Through this thread makes me think that americans do not understand the word small.I hear the term all the time but I don't think I've heard it explained. How small of a government would it take to run a country with hundreds of millions of people?
That's priceless, lol. Conservatives?, are the ones who claim we need smaller government unless I'm mistaken and then you say it's up to me to decide what smaller is. How about a ten percent reduction of federal workers?It might be a good idea for you to tell us what you think the number should be. Thus we can have something to debate.
C'mon man, our military budget we show on the books is astronomical and who knows how much more we spend on black projects? We outspend the other top ten countries put together. I think we could cut our military budget in half for several years with ill effects.sure and leave NATO and leave every other military base around the world
i mean, if you dont want to support the troops and the amounts they will need, the other countries can fend for themselves, right?
This has what to do with smaller government?Democrats always want to cut military spending which is in and of itself the single most important and justifiable spending feds do.
I'm with you. The only way I would like to hear about our government is that it's doing something good for the american people, not stealing from us.It's not really possible. Even an anarchist like me has to realistically understand that running such a large country takes a certain amount of oversight. I want it to be as unobtrusive as possible, but we can't survive as a country without it.
I agree with you and scarily we are now seeing several republican controlled states I believe exceeding their powers, the top three, oklahoma, texas and flori-duh with much more to come if the gop gets its way.For me the kind of small government I care about is mostly government power. I don't especially care about government services. What I worry about is state power to control people's lives or powers that would make it hard to change the government. So I don't really care about, say, Social Security (in fact I think it is a good thing) but I care strongly about mass surveillance.
That's priceless, lol. Conservatives?, are the ones who claim we need smaller government unless I'm mistaken and then you say it's up to me to decide what smaller is. How about a ten percent reduction of federal workers?
We on the left would like to see the super wealthy and corporate america pay their real fair share of taxes, what percentage sounds good to you?
I have no idea.Fine, then define for us how much government we need to run this country.
It's a bullshit, empty slogan like most of the so called "conservative" ideals.I hear the term all the time but I don't think I've heard it explained. How small of a government would it take to run a country with hundreds of millions of people?
I would not want YOU managing anything where my money is invested ...... you are reckless indeed. As you have demonstrated multiple times.I'd cut every single federal department budget by 10%, and then we'd begin the targeted cuts. "Bloated" doesn't even begin to describe the state of the federal bureaucracy. I've worked in heavily regulated industries and seen these folks in action up close; the volume of waste is stunning.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?