3 ms·

Seems ideological rather than factual. It's well known that the level of employment at the IRS prevents the government from collecting billions of dollars of re

Seems ideological rather than factual. It's well known that the level of employment at the IRS prevents the government from collecting billions of dollars of revenue they are legally owed. In other words, the government is understaffed relative to what is necessary to enforce the law. The way you put makes government growth seem like some nebulous cancer. Make tax law simple enough to be enforced by the current staff, or properly staff this branch of the government. This is categorically different than Google needing to invent new tasks to hire people for. Your ideological position, that the government is not understaffed because the government does too much, is by definition unrelated to objective statements of fact, such as the government is understaffed relative to their task of enforcing law.

SiVal 13y ago
You speak of "the law" as if you were discussing laws of nature that government had to "properly staff" to deal with. But these are not objective laws of nature. These laws are demands made by government itself, so "objective statements of fact, such as the government is understaffed relative to the task of enforcing law" is just saying that it's an objective fact that government doesn't have all the staff they need for the task of fully enforcing their growing list of demands. If that's all you meant, I agree with you. But if your statement that government was "hugely understaffed" meant to imply to any extent that government ought to be expanded, that would be ideology, not fact, and I disagree. The way you put makes government growth seem like some nebulous cancer. Putting it some other way doesn't change the facts. They add new laws, regulations, policies, and edicts each year to what you position as some sort of objective "task of enforcing law". That would be fine if they also revoked a similar number of laws, regulations, and demands, letting people go back to managing those affairs for themselves. But that's not their way. They don't give power back. When government decides to give itself more power, the only way the people ever get it back is when government lowers its enforcement priority and shifts staff to exercising other powers. The government has grown far faster than the economy for over a century. It has grown far faster than the population it governs. Though good government is valuable (I'm no anarchist), bad government is destructive, and you always have some of both. A government that removed defective policies at the rate healthy tissue removes defective cells could evolve into something wonderful. But ours doesn't work that way, and until it does, any implication that the government is hugely understaffed and desperately needs to grow larger is an ideological claim I'll dispute. If you weren't implying a need for more government, I don't dispute your statement.
- daughart 13y ago
  If you reread my statements, you will realize there is no implication that we need more government. As an ideologue, you have projected onto my statements a position that you want to argue with. To say that the government never relinquishes power is a statement of ideology, not fact. The Supreme Court, a branch of the government, has taken away government power to regulate political donations to PACs, and decided that certain state governments are not beholden to the federal government while modifying voting policies. There are two examples. Repeal of Glass-Steagall is a congressional example. Federalist political movements only make sense in the context of reform to shrink the power of the federal government. "any implication that the government is hugely understaffed and desperately needs to grow larger is an ideological claim I'll dispute." This is only an ideological position if you view the rule of law as a ideology. I guess it is, but it's the foundation of civilization, so it shouldn't be controversial. If the government passes laws, it should enforce them. Currently it doesn't have the staff to enforce passed laws. That is a statement of fact. YOUR position, by comparison, IS ideological, because you are holding that the government has more employees than you would prefer based on your political beliefs.

SiVal 13y ago

You speak of "the law" as if you were discussing laws of nature that government had to "properly staff" to deal with. But these are not objective laws of nature. These laws are demands made by government itself, so "objective statements of fact, such as the government is understaffed relative to the task of enforcing law" is just saying that it's an objective fact that government doesn't have all the staff they need for the task of fully enforcing their growing list of demands. If that's all you meant, I agree with you. But if your statement that government was "hugely understaffed" meant to imply to any extent that government ought to be expanded, that would be ideology, not fact, and I disagree. The way you put makes government growth seem like some nebulous cancer. Putting it some other way doesn't change the facts. They add new laws, regulations, policies, and edicts each year to what you position as some sort of objective "task of enforcing law". That would be fine if they also revoked a similar number of laws, regulations, and demands, letting people go back to managing those affairs for themselves. But that's not their way. They don't give power back. When government decides to give itself more power, the only way the people ever get it back is when government lowers its enforcement priority and shifts staff to exercising other powers. The government has grown far faster than the economy for over a century. It has grown far faster than the population it governs. Though good government is valuable (I'm no anarchist), bad government is destructive, and you always have some of both. A government that removed defective policies at the rate healthy tissue removes defective cells could evolve into something wonderful. But ours doesn't work that way, and until it does, any implication that the government is hugely understaffed and desperately needs to grow larger is an ideological claim I'll dispute. If you weren't implying a need for more government, I don't dispute your statement.

daughart 13y ago
If you reread my statements, you will realize there is no implication that we need more government. As an ideologue, you have projected onto my statements a position that you want to argue with. To say that the government never relinquishes power is a statement of ideology, not fact. The Supreme Court, a branch of the government, has taken away government power to regulate political donations to PACs, and decided that certain state governments are not beholden to the federal government while modifying voting policies. There are two examples. Repeal of Glass-Steagall is a congressional example. Federalist political movements only make sense in the context of reform to shrink the power of the federal government. "any implication that the government is hugely understaffed and desperately needs to grow larger is an ideological claim I'll dispute." This is only an ideological position if you view the rule of law as a ideology. I guess it is, but it's the foundation of civilization, so it shouldn't be controversial. If the government passes laws, it should enforce them. Currently it doesn't have the staff to enforce passed laws. That is a statement of fact. YOUR position, by comparison, IS ideological, because you are holding that the government has more employees than you would prefer based on your political beliefs.