OK, I've been mulling about making this thread for a long time, since we need some serious discussion in this forum. Hopefully this time I get my wording right.

I'm interested in what you thing what level of government should take care of what services for the public. This may be a broad topic, we shall see: if so, we can narrow it down later.

Anyway, I've always been in favor of the smaller and more local-intensive government, the better. I see this as an easier way to hold elected officials accountable if they go off track.

There are just a few things that I'd want from a federal-level government, which would include:

--Protection of basic civil rights like freedom of speech
--An emergency fund for major disasters
--Preservation of large tracts of wilderness
--National defense (with an emphasis on DEFENSE)

Most other things, like education, road-building, etc., I'd like to see on a state/provincal or local level.

I might get more specific with some stuff as this thread progresses.

What say you?

I'm all for smaller government, and for localizing...however, I don't know that I've ever really heard anybody defend large government practices. I've never heard somebody jump up and say "big government rules!" Or, at least, I've never heard the position articulated well.

So, obviously, at some level, America and many other nations feel a pull towards big central government. If this thread is going to get really interesting, somebody should probably be willing to play devil's advocate and defend this position.



I'll take the case!

But...you know...not right now. I'll throw some thoughts in later today.

I can think of one relatively unexpensive step that would grealty assist in all of these things. Build a fence along the Mexican border. Illegal immigration creates a divided society and multiculturalism creates guilt induced racism. Those cost of illegal immigration is destroying border states and creates ethnic tensions. The number of non-mexicans corssing that border (narco-terrorists or foreign agents?) has sky rocketed.

"In a hearing in the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security earlier this month, Border Patrol Chief David Aguilar said his agency has apprehended 919,000 illegal immigrants so far this year - 119,000 of whom were OTMs [other than mexicans].

That puts the agency on pace to hit 150,000 such apprehensions by the end of the fiscal year, almost triple last year's high-water mark of 65,000 OTM apprehensions. In fiscal 2003, the numbers were around 40,000, and in 2002 and 2001, around 30,000 each."

In general, I think that local government works best and is most accountable to the people. It respects the ways of the local population, as wells as the means, and is usually best equipped for dealing with the everyday managment of services and programs.

There are two areas in which I feel that larger government is better equipped. One is defense and protection. This means not only military defense, but protection of civil rights as well. I guess the other area is kind of tied to that, and it is equality. Smaller government may be better at managing a budget or a program, but they will be limited by the resources available in their local area as well. I for one am not content to let poorer people suffer from inadequate education for example, while affluent areas have things SO much better. There are some states that have much more wealth per capita than others, and even at the state level are more able to take care of their impoverished and disabled people than others. I think that such things should be spread as equally and equitably as possible, and that is better accomplished (although admittedly poorly done sometimes in practice) by a national government.

I think that the Federal government should stay out of education. I know that some states aren't the best in terms of education, but being friends with some teachers, they all want to pull there hair out on No Child Left Behind.

They should be more involved in Health Care. They would (if they were gutsy enough) be in a better postion to "negotiate" with insurance and drug companies than states. However, we know those companies donate more to someone running for Senate or president than say someone running for governor. So...