[Ridley's Own]

Originally Posted by Chrysostom

I'd actually say the opposite -- pretty much no one supports improving governmental efficiency. Doubtless, it's not something anybody would come out and say they oppose, but it's clear that few really support it. The "big" debates in American politics center around the big ideas, not implementation of the ideas already out there.

On a more practical level, no one actually 'fixes' government because if everything was fixed, there'd be nothing to justify either an exchange of power ("We'll do it better!) or being in opposition.

It's almost hackneyed on the Stewart and Colbert shows now to point out that none of the congresspeople even read the big legislation recently passed. That is exactly the opposite of efficiency, something lean and dynamic that will be simple enough to work yet powerful enough to open up many possibilities.

First, I doubt many congresspeople ever actually read the bills in their entirety, and I mean this from day one. Second, I'm not sure I want a lean, efficient government. The bureaucracy in some ways prevents the kind of 1984 police state that people fear. How can we lose our freedoms when the requisition order for said freedoms is with State Undersecretary Schmitt, who's in Antwerp on conference with his EU counterpart?

This doesn't say anything for the kind of 'soft tyranny' of Brazil or things like that, but it's something that ought to be held in balance.

And, again... De Tocqueville called it a long time ago. The inefficiency and bureaucracy are an inevitable, if regrettable, outcome of all dis' here freedom and democracy and capitalism.

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by Ridley's Own

On a more practical level, no one actually 'fixes' government because if everything was fixed, there'd be nothing to justify either an exchange of power ("We'll do it better!) or being in opposition.

Maybe this is why it's tough for me to find anybody I'd want to vote for. =/ They all talk about stopping abortion or feeding the poor and I'm like, "Sounds great -- How?" We distinguish between the values and the implementation, then ignore the implementation in public discourse -- to put it another way, we talk soul but forget body. Let's be embodied here. Incarnation.

Originally Posted by Ridley's Own

First, I doubt many congresspeople ever actually read the bills in their entirety, and I mean this from day one.

No, absolutely you're right, I certainly understand that sometimes the intricacies of politics require lots of fine print. It's more what this particular issue represents that I'm after.

Originally Posted by Ridley's Own

Second, I'm not sure I want a lean, efficient government. The bureaucracy in some ways prevents the kind of 1984 police state that people fear. How can we lose our freedoms when the requisition order for said freedoms is with State Undersecretary Schmitt, who's in Antwerp on conference with his EU counterpart?

This doesn't say anything for the kind of 'soft tyranny' of Brazil or things like that, but it's something that ought to be held in balance.

And, again... De Tocqueville called it a long time ago. The inefficiency and bureaucracy are an inevitable, if regrettable, outcome of all dis' here freedom and democracy and capitalism.

Right, I agree completely, and this is actually why I was saying earlier that I suspect the reason the Right may seem so inconsistent is that in a good representative democracy compromise will destroy ideological consistency, which in my opinion is one of its strengths: Straight-forward, fully consistent ideologies have a tendency of being either useless or fascist (or both). I'm a big fan of having "contradictory" practices that result from the contingencies of history because there is a lot of wisdom and strength there.

I think you're right, however, that this "ought to be held in balance." I don't want a revolution. That sounds terribly dangerous and foolish to me. But I think you balance that, on the other side, with clearing out some cobwebs, redundancies, etc. now and then. Not on a revolutionary scale. But to the point where, say, it doesn't take five years of permit petitions to start a business or build a home. That's where you stifle your chance for innovation, dynamism.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I think I've deliberately avoided the example of capital punishment in this thread (correct me if I am wrong there) to focus instead on poclicies that result in innocent deaths (failure to support pre-natal care programs, tendancy to support violent action, etc).

Nevertheless we should figure out exactly what they mean. They might subscribe to a consequentialist ethic which allows for destruction of some life if in the end it saves more lives than would otherwise have been saved.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by slap_j

Nevertheless we should figure out exactly what they mean. They might subscribe to a consequentialist ethic which allows for destruction of some life if in the end it saves more lives than would otherwise have been saved.

That's the argument for capital punishment (death to the deserving), and conveineince is used as the justification for innocent bystanders (which I think is a problematic position, but it's also a difficult to frame argument).

Then we get to the position that the government should interfere in a pregnancy to stop a woman who wants to kill the fetus from doing so, but should not interfere in a pregnancy to help a woman save a fetus she wants to save.

[zedman]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Less government and lower taxes can certainly go hand-in-hand

Lower taxes, higher spending, and a balanced budget cannot co-exist.

The right's generalized support of what appears to be unmitigated spending in the largest areas of our budget (the military) appears inconsistant with a call to lower government spending.

I'm not calling *any* military spending incompatable: but a platform which does not seek to curtail (indeed, repeatedly argues to increase) what is already the largest spending in the world is certainly not fiscally conservative.

Well I do agree on the less government part here, that it could mean lower taxes--although that isn't necessarily so if the government doesn't want to lower taxes. But less government would allow for taxes to be lowered.

Lower taxes and a balanced budget could co-exist, if overall spending was not increased.
But if spending was cut in some areas and raised in other areas it is possible to do--depending on how it was spread around.
I would start with what the government spends on itself--that could be lowered dramatically with no ill effect to society, only ill effect to the politicians that abuse those privileges (privileges, not rights)
Governments of all stripes spend too much on themselves.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by zedman

Lower taxes and a balanced budget could co-exist, if overall spending was not increased.
But if spending was cut in some areas and raised in other areas it is possible to do--depending on how it was spread around.

So do you believe that advocating increasing a military budget that is already larger than the rest of the world combined, whether or not the military even wants it, is "small government"?

I would start with what the government spends on itself--that could be lowered dramatically with no ill effect to society, only ill effect to the politicians that abuse those privileges (privileges, not rights)Governments of all stripes spend too much on themselves.

That's an odd spot to start given how small a percentage of the economy it is... but I digress.

[zedman]

Never mentioned military spending.

I haven't actually looked into the specifics of the US military spending, so I can't comment directly, but I do think there are ways Canadian military spending needs a boost.

Yes, I am Canadian.

My comments were related to government spending overall, without getting into the specifics of every area.
That would depend on the country and the needs at that time.

Starting with how much Government spends on itself is foundational to how they spend in other areas, so I would start with that, plus it would cut a lot of waste if done properly (Which the cynic in me says will never happen.)
From there you would have a more realistic picture of what needs to be done, and what can be done.