Would you rather have a government that took care everything or nothing
By gewcew23
@gewcew23 (8007)
United States
March 21, 2008 11:42am CST
I believe in absolutes, if you believe that it is the government job to take care of something then why not everything. If you believe that the government should not be taking care of somethings why not everything. This is very important because this year election boarders on socialism vs. anti-socialism. What is your choice.
2 people like this
12 responses
@Destiny007 (5805)
• United States
21 Mar 08
I believe in minimal government... one that is not involved in healthcare, education, social issues, religion and personal liberties.
I also believe that we should maintain our sovereignty and we should withdraw from the UN immediately.
We don't need a nanny state or a government to take care of us or to dictate our daily lives or what we do.
We have become a nation of laws... most of which are unnecessary, intrusive, and sometimes downright stupid.
I believe that we should return the government to the limits set out for it in the Constitution, and we REALLY need to clean out Congress and start fresh.
The way socialism is creeping into our society, it WILL be full blown communism one of these days, and by that time it will be too late.
I am a conservative, but more then that I am a Conservative Constitutionalist... and I believe that if the Constitution does not allow it, then the government is not supposed to be doing it... and there are a LOT of things the government should not be doing.... and both parties are responsible for that.
4 people like this
@mizrae (587)
• United States
22 Mar 08
First, over the last three decades, with each succeeding generation, our public school system has been "teaching" the children the benefits of socialism. (If you do not believe this, those that can check your children's or grandchildren's textbooks!)
Second, the government has gotten us into this mess, starting back in 1913 with the addition of the Federal Reserve Act placing our economy dollars in the hands of unknown and international banking concerns.
Third, the government has certainly shown how well they have run this country. This administration is the most corrupt and illegal in American history.
Our ignorance and complacency and demands of government interference have brought this crisis down around our heads. Our constitution clearly states the presidents ONLY role is to protect this country NOT to run the whole country nor dictate to its citizens. WE ARE THE POWER in this country, WE are suppose MAKE THE LAWS that govern us NOT THE GOVERNMENT! Unfortunately, the majority of us have become an ill-informed, ignorant and irresponsible society that does not have the faintest idea how to manage themselves let alone make laws. Why are YOU allowing known voter fraud to take place? Why aren't you demanding accountability from all government officials? Why do you continue to sit and watch T.V.; play video games; buy stuff you don't need; get more credit cards and NOT educate yourself? Why do you believe everything on mainstream news? Look around, what do your eyes see, what is your heart and conscience telling you? I am begging you, seek alternate news sources to find out what's really going on.
2 people like this
@redyellowblackdog (10629)
• United States
21 Mar 08
I'd rather the government took care of as little as possible.
National defense? Private contractors are currently doing outstanding work. In the past, privateers, organizations with Letters of Marque, and volunteer milita performed marvelously.
Deliever the US MAIL? Highway Contract Route mailmen (not USPS employees) deliever the US MAIL much more efficiently (PROFITABLY!) than the government.
Health care? Check out the VA system and see if you would like to have everyone subjected to that!
Education? Homeschoolers and private schools regularily out perform the government schools.
The more I think about it, the less I want the government to do.
3 people like this
@theprogamer (10534)
• United States
22 Mar 08
Perhaps I can be of some assistance Red?
Transportation - Well the current funding still gives a poor product and created a system virtually dependent on long distances via car (Hello higher gas prices too...)
Education II - Get vouchers in, also look at other countries with less spending in education and a BETTER product (Singapore, Japan, etc), then compare that with current public deaducation in the states... -_-
Healthcare II - See VA treatement, for minor but notable examples, see IRS, see DMV; look at government hands (HMO in the 70s), liability insurance overblown
Lawmaking - Well the government is needed for this, but has been making some bogus laws as of late; super taxes, current divorce laws, custody laws
2 people like this
@Latrivia (2878)
• United States
24 Mar 08
I would prefer neither, as a government that takes care of everything and everyone is just as bad as a government that takes care of nothing. The government has to take care of some things to ensure that the country doesn't crumble and fall away, but if it tries to take care of everything, the civil rights of citizens will eventually erode. Neither option is a very promising one, which is why absolutes are bad and it's better to meet somewhere in the middle.
1 person likes this
@srinutamma (4)
• India
22 Mar 08
I would say government is the important body but should concentrate on important and legal issues, but on not unnecessary things.
1 person likes this
@Guardian208 (1095)
• United States
21 Mar 08
I believe in absolutes in many cases as well, but it has to be much more granular than your proposition supposes. There are things that the government should take care of absolutely, national security, national infrastructure, our economy and monetary systems, our laws and judicial system etc. etc.
Those things are required for the efficient operation of our country. Without those things, we would de-evolve into a third world country.
There are other things that the government should absolutey NOT be involved in, our ability to choose who we associate with, who we marry, where we work, where we get educated, how I spend my money, my speech, my faith, my healthcare, etc. etc.
These things are all individual choices. Once government starts intruding on my freedoms and liberties, we no longer live in a free nation. Unfortunately, as I look around, many of our freedoms have already been eroded by the expansion of our government. Once we lose freedoms, they are hard to get back.
1 person likes this
@choudhary03 (943)
• Hyderabad, India
21 Mar 08
No person in this world is perfect that applies even to governments. they cannot take care of everything we need to take care of somethings. There are somethings which people should take care of.
1 person likes this
@MntlWard (878)
• United States
21 Mar 08
To address the poster above me who says that no one is perfect, including government:
If it wasn't the government doing it, it would still be non-perfect people doing it.
The problem with handing public services over to private interests is that private interests are often not at all interested in the public good.
1 person likes this
@suspenseful (40193)
• Canada
22 Mar 08
I would rather the government stay out of everything. It used to be that the church took care of things for those who did not have good paying jobs, or where out of the work force for some time. In other cases, the work had a fund in which everyone distributed money, people bought health and medical insurance, and the doctors did not charge or only charged a minimal fee if your income was below a certain level.
Once the government takes care of all our needs, that it can tell what needs they consider we get paid for. I am about to get Old Age Security and the government tells me that I can only make a certain amount before part of it gets clawed back. If I had had made enough money so I could save enough, then I could have already paid taxes on it first, and I could have had more than enough to live on without worrying if I wanted to work some more.
@bravenewworld (746)
• United States
21 Mar 08
So you cannot tell the difference between a country with socialist programs (which includes just about every country, btw) and an all-out communist state? You might believe in absolutes, but very little in real life is that simple.
@theprogamer (10534)
• United States
22 Mar 08
While I say the government is needed for somethings, there are plenty of areas where it has really failed. If I had to choose between a government that took care of everything (why even live if its all taken care of?), and nothing from them... I'd be one to take nothing (or the bare minimum to be truthful).
1 person likes this
@cristolb86 (13)
• United States
22 Mar 08
If governments took care of everything then we wouldn't learn to be responsible and take charge and be motivated to excel. But at the same time we need good social welfare for people that can't provide for themselves, good health care, subsidized education so all can afford, good standard of living averages. The things that show we are developing as a nation and able to take care of each other but not a government to spoil us rotten. But all said and done I am 100% behind
a Obama or Hillary for President than the other side.
@kulaskulasito (430)
• United States
30 Mar 08
I don't have good feeling for absolutes. I am always a believer that wisdom lies in moderation.
Absolutes are most often dangerous. Because it feeds of extreme polarization, they destroy the truthfulness that resides on the other side of the coin. Reality teaches that no one can possess the monopoly of truth. Whatever is true always expresses itself in many different facets and aspects. No single aspect of reality, becuase we are but finite and limited, can ever hope to capture the entirety of truth.
That being said, a government which takes care of everything is an agent of complete obliteration - of freedom, of creativity, of humanity's aspiration for self-expression and self-creation. Just the same, a government which takes care of nothing for its peoples' welfare represents anarchy and total disorder; it defeats its very purpose of governance.
I would go for a government which responds to the pressing need of a people situated in a particular time, in a particular space, in a particular condition. I would go for a government which represents moderation, and is able to address the varrying needs of the people in their diversity. Absolutist government may not be able to appreciate situatedness and relative conditions. But life, as we know it, is relative and conditioned. Responding to what we need right now, because it changes - really - is a government which is effective and what we need.
This coming election, the American people must choose a government which is able to stretch itself to a variety to programs to address the ever changing needs of our people.
