4 ms·

You really want governments to start failing? I mean California is getting close, but that's mostly because it hamstrung itself early on by allowing citizens t

by redcap 17y ago

You really want governments to start failing? I mean California is getting close, but that's mostly because it hamstrung itself early on by allowing citizens to promote legislation. While there are a few governments that I would like to be changed (Chinese Democracy anyone), the general trend towards democracy and liberty has been a good thing. If saw a govt does get too big to fail, having it fail could well lead to chaos or a dictatorship. I know there is a lot of whinging by Republicans in the US about 'small' government, but really you're not going to get decent change in your country overall unless the federal government acts as the states aren't up to it (seatbelt laws anyone?)

ams6110 17y ago
I think in the case of governments it's not that they can be too big to fail, it's that if they get too big, they do fail. Though maybe that's the general case, now that I think about it. edit s/its/it\'s/g
dangoldin 17y ago
At the same time the bigger the government the less change the country will have since most of the resources will be used by people in government to maintain the status quo.
cvg 17y ago
I don't think Anamax is saying that he wants appropriate governments to fail, but rather that ginormous governments should be split as well. If a country's failure leads to chaos, perhaps the size of that government should be rethought. We should step back and realize that a government isn't some sacred perpetual institution but rather a means to represent people. If a government fails to represent it's people, it must be changed.
- anamax 17y ago
  I thought that that's what I wrote. Thanks.
shpxnvz 17y ago
really you're not going to get decent change in your country overall unless the federal government acts as the states aren't up to it (seatbelt laws anyone?) The point is that in the U.S. the Federal Government was, by design, to be limited in the powers it could exert over the states and citizens. I think the argument from those who are for "small government" is not that change such as seatbelt laws are bad or unwanted, but that the cost of and danger in relinquishing to the Federal Government the power to make those decisions is far, far greater.

by redcap 17y ago

ams6110 17y ago

I think in the case of governments it's not that they can be too big to fail, it's that if they get too big, they do fail. Though maybe that's the general case, now that I think about it. edit s/its/it\'s/g

dangoldin 17y ago

At the same time the bigger the government the less change the country will have since most of the resources will be used by people in government to maintain the status quo.

cvg 17y ago

I don't think Anamax is saying that he wants appropriate governments to fail, but rather that ginormous governments should be split as well. If a country's failure leads to chaos, perhaps the size of that government should be rethought. We should step back and realize that a government isn't some sacred perpetual institution but rather a means to represent people. If a government fails to represent it's people, it must be changed.

anamax 17y ago
I thought that that's what I wrote. Thanks.

shpxnvz 17y ago

really you're not going to get decent change in your country overall unless the federal government acts as the states aren't up to it (seatbelt laws anyone?) The point is that in the U.S. the Federal Government was, by design, to be limited in the powers it could exert over the states and citizens. I think the argument from those who are for "small government" is not that change such as seatbelt laws are bad or unwanted, but that the cost of and danger in relinquishing to the Federal Government the power to make those decisions is far, far greater.