You think the left is trustworthy? What do you think of Brexit? Your country voted for sovereignty and your government (particularly the left) said that your citizens demanding sovereignty was a bad thing and you might have to vote again until they got the desired result or at least drag out the separation process into only one meeting a month to negotiate the terms. On the bright side, that vote made it clear that a majority of your adult population recognizes that being subject to the unelected European Commission is a bad thing, so maybe you'll start to dismantle the government hierarchy from the top down.
Pass eh? That sounds like you know it is but don't want to admit it lol.
"I don't Have any choice" Don't get so down on yourself. You can always vote against every proposed law or political candidate who wants to make the government bigger. You can write letters to politicians urging them to accelerate the re-acquisition of sovereignty. You can protest overburdened bureaucracy and excessively powerful legislators.

@Jnutter819 When we were given the vote we were not given all the information we needed we certainly were not given the information that the Tory Party had used more than their allotted share of money on their battle bus.For which they may be about to be prosecuted. Also no one understood the future consequences as they were not spelled out - Some of the people voted tactically to leave to give the government a bloody nose and that was quite damaging .
But I can tell by the sneering tone of your writing to me that nothing I could say would make any impression on you so when I say I don't have a choice I live in Northern Ireland I have the crappiest M.P who sits on his arse all day doing sod all- Iain paisley Junior and I have done everything that is possible to be done to no effect we don't even have Stormont in action .if you reply to this in the same snotty way you replied earlier I will happily block you and am equally happy for you to block me .Yes and we will pay a heavy price for coming out of the EEC We are already paying it right now as english children have no free school meals as the budget has gone to buy off the D.U.P so N.I.Children can get free school meals - the border is still an issue when I first came to live here men with machine guns patrolled the borders So that is a possibility too. Your 3rd point didnt make much sense which is why I passed -of course a government is made up of politicians and bureaucrats good luck with changing that And yes I do think we would have a better chance with Jeremy Corbyn.

@jacpod "When we were given the vote we were not given all the information we needed" Example, please "we certainly were not given the information that the Tory Party had used more than their allotted share of money on their battle bus.For which they may be about to be prosecuted." How is that relevant to Brexit? "Also no one understood the future consequences as they were not spelled out" What is not spelled out about leaving the EU? There was plenty of fear-mongering prediction of economic disaster etc. but it seems pretty clear people wanted sovereignty. "Some of the people voted tactically to leave to give the government a bloody nose and that was quite damaging ." How is it damaging if you don't mind explaining your position (edit: I see you kind of made points later), and what is wrong with opposition to an overly restrictive government?
"But I can tell by the sneering tone of your writing to me that nothing I could say would make any impression on you" Looking back I can see how a sneering tone fits it, but the tone that was in my head was more of a raised eyebrow and calm questioning. "so when I say I don't have a choice I live in Northern Ireland I have the crappiest M.P who sits on his arse all day doing sod all- Iain paisley Junior and I have done everything that is possible to be done to no effect we don't even have Stormont in action" That sucks. It would be nice if you could have less government holding you back, wouldn't it? "if you reply to this in the same snotty way you replied earlier I will happily block you and am equally happy for you to block me" I don't block people over political disagreements, and as I already said, it wasn't snotty, it was calm disagreement and an interest in seeing if I might be able to learn something from you. "Yes and we will pay a heavy price for coming out of the EEC We are already paying it right now as english children have no free school meals as the budget has gone to buy off the D.U.P so N.I.Children can get free school meals" I don't see how that part of government corruption is connected to Brexit other than being yet another example of how government sucks, but maybe that's because I'm not familiar with the U.K.'s government. "the border is still an issue when I first came to live here men with machine guns patrolled the borders So that is a possibility too." I don't see why that's necessarily a problem unless you mean things are going to get more violent. If it keeps criminals out it is probably a good thing. If it's to keep people from fleeing tyranny like the Berlin Wall I can see how that's a problem. I don't like the government, but I understand soldiers trying to keep their families and neighbors safe. "Your 3rd point didnt make much sense which is why I passed -of course a government is made up of politicians and bureaucrats good luck with changing that" I'm not saying it can change, and I think all of this is as obvious as that third point. And yet, people sometimes react as if I'm crazy when I say government sucks. I figure the only way they can think it crazy is if they either haven't thought about it or they disagree with one of the seemingly obvious points I laid out."And yes I do think we would have a better chance with Jeremy Corbyn." I'm honestly not sure what that means as far as expressing your political views. I've heard of Corbyn, but rarely enough that my memory of him is vague. What does Corbyn stand for?

Big government is whatever end goal the people who think ours is too small have. When asked how big that is, the answer is usually something vague like "as big as it needs to be." How big does it need to be? How big is too big? You tell me. Try to tell me a problem the government cannot solve.
"Do we need agencies watching the food we eat or the water we drink? Yes." Individuals and third parties can do as well as or better than the government. The government isn't what made the meat packing industry reform. Upton Sinclair did by taking away their profits. The laws passed afterwards only saved the industry, not the citizens. Regulation is the good publicity they needed to counteract The Jungle. What would have happened if they didn't get it? Maybe citizens would have formed a watchdog group that did basically the same thing except more efficiently since it can't blame poor performance on lack of funding and just get more tax money, but instead needs to actually address its problems. Maybe new meatpackers would have started up with the advertising that they were clean, e.g. by having a Jew eat it to "prove" it's Kosher or by allowing guided tours through the factory as many breweries do (you can even charge for the tour for extra revenue). One way or another, the truth will come out, and when it does, any dissatisfied customers are liable to vote with their dollar or begin competing with whatever dissatisfied them. Spite can be a very powerful motivator: [pinterest.com]
"I think what we really need is accountability in government." The only way you get that is a coupling of the right to bear arms and transparency. One of those we still (mostly) have in America despite advocates for tyranny. The other is something governments naturally discourage because it somehow manages to make government even less efficient.
"Our largest expenditure is the military budget that seems to lose trillions of dollars. How is this possible when the military has a mandatory paper trail?" Because the government hates transparency as much as it hates accountability, and the military's disdain for paperwork exceeds its love of discipline. Of course, if it had a profit motive, you can be sure its investors would know exactly where the money went, but if its only income was profit, it would die out quickly if it ever got as involved in empire-building as ours is.

Crony capitalism requires government collusion with business by definition. Get rid of the government and market forces will take care of the rest. Also, I don't live in an area with Comcast, but my DMV is definitely bad enough to justify the stereotypes.

@Jnutter819

>Crony capitalism requires government collusion with business by definition.

Yes, I don't see what your point is. My point was GIVEN the choice between cronism and just full government monopoly I will pick the government. Look at our medical system, our banking system, our ISPs and tell me a national system wouldnt be easier to deal with. Most expensive medical system on earth, one of the least efficient and less banking companies per capita on earth, and not even in the top ten for ISP speeds. The vast majority of people prefer to use a well regulated government service vs the illusion of choice we have under cronism.

>Get rid of the government and market forces will take care of the rest.

You are right. The various monopolies we have now are a direct byproduct of government regulation. Just like heart attacks are a direct byproduct of having lots of food. I don't know about you but I would rather be well fed and die at 80 from a heart attack compared to dying at 12 from starvation. We can have both: worker safety, consumer safety, and environmental rules without creating cronism. It is possible to do.

>Also, I don't live in an area with Comcast

Thats nice. I list a specific instance of a general issue and you attack the specific without acknowledging the general.

@engineer_in_nj "Look at our medical system" that has short wait times and high quality treatments that people will cross borders to get
"our banking system" government bailouts, subsidies, interest level controls, etc.
"our ISPs" in my area there is competition and they actually provide a good service at a reasonable price for the most part, despite the government's interference
"and tell me a national system wouldnt be easier to deal with" you try to say that a single-payer healthcare system would be better with a straight face. Not to me though, but to a veteran who pays for normal healthcare rather than wrangle the VA.
"one of the least efficient and less banking companies per capita on earth" I assume by your username that you were born in NJ and your first language is English, so I'll have to chalk this illegible nonsense up to government schools. That also explains your disinterest in using apostrophes within contractions and inability to spell cronyism, among other errors.
"not even in the top ten for ISP speeds" adjusting for population density? My boyfriend lives in a very rural area, and his connection definitely sucks. The sprawl of the Midwest farmlands, scale of Alaskan wilderness, and isolation of Hawaii could greatly impact such a statistic.
"The vast majority of people prefer to use a well regulated government service vs the illusion of choice we have under cronism." Yeah, sure they do, which is why so few people own cars and ridership of public transport is so high. /s You need to get away from NYC if you really want to have a comprehensive understanding of America. For instance, in Cincinnati they recently put in a new streetcar with taxpayer money, for which they charge roughly half the fare of a bus. The project is failing because nobody uses it.

"Just like heart attacks are a direct byproduct of having lots of food." ROFL XD It's more like ingesting carcinogens and getting giant cancerous growths actually. If there's any food analogy, it's like eating ramen noodles with hot dogs every day and developing intestinal cancer. It's not too much of something we need, it's something toxic incorporated into something necessary (in this case, a civilized//peaceful society).
"I would rather be well fed and die at 80 from a heart attack compared to dying at 12 from starvation." I would rather die peacefully in my sleep at 120 years old (while relatively fit and active) than die of cancer at 60 (sitting on my couch eating chips), but maybe that's just me.
"We can have both: worker safety, consumer safety, and environmental rules without creating cronism." That's three things, and we can have the first two and a safe environment without a government too. Also, stating the we can have something makes saying that it is possible afterwards redundant. "It is possible to do."

"Thats nice. I list a specific instance of a general issue and you attack the specific without acknowledging the general." More like you use anecdotal evidence that doesn't generalize to the entirety of America, and I clarify that I do not share that experience before referencing something equally as unconvincing as your own anecdote while simultaneously demonstrating that your anecdote does not apply to the general public.

Same applies the the media, multinational corporations, the military, and all large structures of power. The irony is that these other large power structures have trained the public to automatically hate government, while giving them a free pass because they're not government. It's not government that is the issue: it's large human organisations of power, all of which should not be trusted, public or private.

@David1955 The military is a part of the government I failed to mention, but it does have too much power now you mention it.
The multinational corporations exist mostly because of the government imo. That's how such an unwieldy, hard to adapt monolithic corporation can continue to survive when they should naturally lose market share to smaller, more adaptive businesses.
The media is already losing power, so it's less of a problem but still not trustworthy.

All in all, I think most people realize at least some of those cannot be trusted. I may be too optimistic though. It could be a very divisive topic.

so true @David1955 there all part of the same thing. the police and armed forces are their heavies and the biggest gang. you have to earn my trust anyway.

@Jnutter819 .so, I think you mean the military industrial corporate ruling elite, and it's minions, which runs your country, badly. With that broader definition I agree. I've said similar things myself.

all countries

They should certainly have to pass an IQ test before running for public office.

@Condor5 I don't know what you mean.

@Rugglesby he's almost as fucking stupid as Trump.

@sarahjustme that's an invalid assumption, and not even close to what I mean. What we need are people who have greater intellect than this Abbot guy, or Donald Trump. And, I'm sorry, but "voters" are who put them in office. Doesn't say much for the collective intelligence of that body, does it?

@sarahjustme well, for one thing, let's get rid of the Electoral College; there's s start.

@Condor5 The electoral college was made to prevent the tyranny of the majority where only highly populated areas would really matter in an election. It's a way to try to ensure that the representatives actually represent everyone, not just the metropolitan/suburban citizens who make up the majority. Or are you an agrarophobe? lol don't you know "all white people are racist, all men are misogynistic, all cisgender people are transphohic, and all members of the majority are inherently biased against members of the minority, or oppressed group." Seriously though, as an egalitarian I don't think we should be giving one group all the power.

@Jnutter819 sounds to me like you're saying the majority shouldn't rule.

@Condor5 mob rule is bad. No rule/rule of freedom is better.

@Jnutter819 hmm, so we're a "mob" are we? Wow! Let the name-calling begin...

@Jnutter819 I don't think we should be giving any body all the power, governments govern too many things. Smaller Government with less power. We have Federal, State and Local Governments here, with many over lapping responsibilities. We have a National Broadband (Fraudband) Network for internet that really sux, and the Government has closed off all competition to it, you MUST have it or nothing. I shouldn't have to ask a Government if I can put up a play house for my kids in my back yard, I have to get permission from 2 levels of Government.

@Condor5 It was not a pejorative delineating a particular group, but rather an expression of my disdain for the supposed freedom of pure democracy; that is why I immediately juxtaposed it with a synonym for anarchy. The electoral college was created for a reason, and that reason was forcing representatives to truly be representative to the entire population rather than simply the metropolitan and suburban majority.

@Rugglesby "I don't think we should be giving any body all the power, governments govern too many things." It pleases me that we agree to some degree.
"Smaller Government with less power." That is indeed the necessary state to ensure stability for the interim until we achieve full liberty.

Monopoly, bureaucracy, and redundancy, oh my! lol

Our political system favors corrupt people to such a degree that pretty much no one can become a federal legislator unless they're corrupt, because otherwise they can't afford to campaign. So the more control a politician has, the more certain you can be that (s)he is corrupt.

Individual bureaucrats may be efficient, but bureaucracy itself is not. Have you ever tried to legally change your name? You have to pay to have a judge consider your request and make sure it's not to try to escape your criminal record, wait a few days or weeks for that decision to cone back, go in, get it changed on your license, get it changed on your social security card, etc. Each step requires a lot of waiting on the mail. That means even if the bureaucrats you interact with personally are efficient (as they likely are from practice if nothing else) it will probably take at least a month to officially change your name. Contrast that with changing your name on Facebook and you'll see how much of a difference bureaucracy makes.

Public servants are good, but they don't tend to get very far in the government.

Those things could probably all be provided better and more efficiently by the private sector.
I know there are neighborhoods hiring private security because cops are too slow and inefficient.
I know there are private ambulance services that mostly move you from one medical institution to another but could probably fill in for emergency medical transport too if the government wasn't what everyone went too first. Clean air and water are things the government can barely provide. Consider Flint, or the Dakota Pipeline. Consider how emissions regulations have only forced companies to move to places we can't control them (e.g. China) but they can still impact the environment since pollution is a global issue. Heck, people trust the government so much to keep our water clean that they'd rather pay 100x as much for private sector bottled water as they'd pay for the same amount of public tap water.
Unemployment insurance sounds like a better safety net than one that perversely incentivizes unemployment (encourages people not to work). If you don't think people follow incentives, just ask yourself if you'd take a dreary minimum wage job that made you actually earn less money than relying on benefits. Would you work at a job that you had to pay to work at without getting marketable experience?

You think I want my parents to die? That's a ridiculous claim. Here's a question: why do we need government to take young worker's money and give it to old retirees? Why can't we just give to our parents (and have charities to give to those who don't have children, or at least not any with enough money to support them)? What do you think old/disabled people lived off of for all of history before the last hundred years?

If you can't see a way something could be done better without the government stepping in to make it less efficient, it's a failure of your imagination, not proof that we need government.

I don't think you want your folks to die. Those old retirees paid into the system and earned their Social Security and Medicare. Tell me how you are going to support your family when you probably can't support yourself yet. My 22 yr old daughter and her boyfriend have been living with me for $100 per month. They need $100 week to buy their weed. Old and disabled lived in poorhouses/institutions over 100 yrs ago. Now they live in low income housing with the junkies, I looked at it and told them to go fuck yourselves. Granted the govt sucks big time right now with trumpty dumpty and his henchmen Republicans but we can vote them out come November. Use your vote wisely.

We need Statesmen/women, people who truly care about the welfare of their countrymen/women.

Lobbying is a problem, but I don't count them as part of the government. Don't get me wrong, they are a big part of the problem, but it doesn't contradict my original point. Also, I'm not exclusively talking about America. The European Commission is not accountable to their constituents at all, and when countries vote to leave the EU they are encouraged to vote again and even their elected representatives let it go as slowly as possible instead of actually doing what the people want and restoring sovereignty to themselves.

Another part of the problem is how expensive campaigning for public office is. My mom works for a county judge, and I remember Dad asking her once if she would ever try to get elected. She said no because it takes $100k to run a campaign just for a county judge. We need a more efficient way for people to get elected that doesn't require huge donations from people who are going to want their money's worth.

I think the Democrats are as bad as the Republicans. I have seen some evidence supporting this, but forget where. Basically though, wealthy donors give to both sides instead of putting all their money on one horse.

So you're saying that government is composed of politicians making laws and bureaucrats enforcing them? How does that contradict my position that government is politicians and bureaucrats? I want saying an individual in the government is simultaneously a politician and bureaucrat, but that most people in the government are one of those.

"DMV's job to slow the entry of new drivers (or old ones whose faculties may have deteriorated) onto the roads in order to check their competency to drive." If there was a private organization devoted to evaluating drivers (you know, like insurance companies) then it would be far faster and more efficient. I don't see how you think the government does a better job.

"Regulation is big pert of what government is supposed to do, and we are all better off having it. It's government regulation that keeps corporations from polluting the air we breathe and water we drink." you don't think the free market is as big of a factor? Why do you think Kohl's and Kroger so loudly declare that their bags use recycled plastic? Why do car companies sell so many hybrids? And do regulations even help, or do they just push companies to move factories to less regulated counties like China and now Africa? Pollution is definitely an issue where you need to consider the global picture, and that picture shows how ineffective regulation can be.

"If, for instance, you want to forestall climate catastrophe from global warming, then people need to understand the link between burning fossil fuels and carbon dioxide's capacity for trapping heat. And it wouldn't hurt to be able to appreciate the scale of the problem, the historical context going back millions of years, and the existence of feedback loops in the natural climate system." You think the government does a good job of that? You did go through mandatory education right? How many students really pay attention? For that matter, it seems to be scientifically possible that this is just pay of a global climate cycle rather than humans ruining a planet. Yes, most climate science studies support anthropogenic climate change, but A) the government only funds those that do and B) they almost all use the same data set that hasn't actually been peer reviewed and is "proprietary" (expensive to look at, difficult to verify). And climate models? Meteorologists can't even get the weather right consistently three days in advance. Al Gore benefited monetarily from his hockey stick graph that at this point only takes a thermometer to disprove. The same can go for other protections.

@Jnutter819 your Democratic Party needs to be reinvented as a truly progressive party. Some there are trying to that, especially younger people. The corporatised corruption of that party through the Clintons and their ilk is difficult to change.

@David1955 "My" democratic party as an American? Because I'm not really a Democrat lol. And how should it be more progressive precisely? That's become a buzzword to describe the identity politics it is already steeped in, to the point that I think even foreigners know how "progressive" it is. And corporate corruption is such a central part of American politics these days that we might need to completely eradicate the government to truly cure.

@Jnutter819 yes as yours America, the country. I get your cynicism and frustration. Progressive as in a social democratic agenda. Like Mr Sanders. Eradication implies revolution or anarchism. That's extreme.

@David1955 Bernie Sanders is a rich, corrupt politician who only wants socialism because he thinks of the poor as too dirty to reach out to directly. Look at his house(s) and his charitable giving and you'll see what I mean.

Also, social democracy could refer to identity politics (white privilege, every straight person is a homophobe, etc.) or to socialism/communism. I'd be happy to explain how both of those are destructive, regressive ideologies if you'd clarify why you support them.

Revolution? Not a violent one, just in the voting booth. Anarchy? Eventually that would be nice, so long as corrupt government programs were replaced with liberty to choose between private service providers. For instance, the government doesn't actually build the roads itself in most areas; it just hires contractors to do it. Perhaps we could take out the middle man and let the communities most directly impacted by poor roads collect money voluntarily to hire a contractor. One thing at a time though, to ensure stability while increasing freedom.

This: Which way do you lean politically and why?

@Jnutter819
That figure is deceptive. The right talks about smaller government but actually supports bigger government. The left support programs that are directed toward people but limit big business while the right wants to regulate individuals to death but give business free reign to do anything to make more money.

@PhoebeCat Give me an example of the right trying to regulate individuals to death. Also, consider that many individuals from minorities voted for Trump, and it's not just because white women can't think for themselves as Hillary recently said.

When it comes to identity politics, just say no. Whether it's the alt right or the leftists, dividing people by race etc. is a bad idea.

Also, if you actually read the post, it refers to Brexit, and that's a big government issue.

Cutting the federal government out of things that could easily be decided on a state level sounds good to me. Of course, breaking it down further is also usually wise.

@Jnutter819 that doesn't work. DeVos is trying to do that (state level decisions) with guns in schools and has backed of from federal protections for transgen kids. If you look at offshore drilling, there were federal protections in place that Trump has stepped on, pissing off the governors of coastal states, many republican. If you look at issue after issue, the federal government has played a key role in funding and in basic protections. States/local governments often have conflicts of interest that prevent them from making fair decision with respect to their resources.

@crazycurlz Transgender kids? I mean on some level yeah, kids can socially transition, but if people aren't mature enough to marry until 18, what would make them mature enough to decide to permanently sterilize themselves with hormone replacement therapy? And if people had school choice, it wouldn't really matter if one school refused to let trans kids use a specific bathroom, because you could just move to a school that's more in line with your ideology.

As to guns in school, I think we should let states experiment with arming the victims and see which policies actually help and which are like gun free zones.

Offshore drilling? What objection do they have? Is it an eyesore? Maybe they should find their own ways to limit offshore drilling. Or maybe just let us reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Federal funding has plenty of problems (see the video in the original post) and "basic protections" should include protecting people from murder right? Because the police don't do much of that. By the time police can get to you, generally all they can do is outline your body in chalk. Face it, the government doesn't help as much as you think.

@Jnutter819 man, if you can't even grasp the importance of federal protections for a minority group (in this case trans kids), we can't even have a discussion. The world you envision is not a world I want to live in.

@crazycurlz I just provided an alternative solution that doesn't require the force of the government behind it and in my opinion would probably work better. Besides, you may not have noticed, but I am trans myself and probably know more about this topic than you. For instance, prior to the trend of self-declared non-binary trans people becoming practically a majority among those seeking liberal arts degrees, 75% of kids who were gender non-conforming grew up to conform to gender norms and consider their period of non-conformity an embarrassing phase. Those who have transitioned have no lower risk of suicide than closeted trans people, and many still work to reverse their transitions expensively, though of course the sterilization is usually permanent. That in mind, tell me again how you think people who are too young to own a gun or commit to a lifelong romantic relationship are mature enough to sterilize themselves permanently.

@Jnutter819 I did know that you were trans before I made the comment. I'm stepping away from this conversation. I've lost interest

Which way do you lean politically and why?

Can you prove both that their standard of living is better because of their governments and that making the same changes here would work?

Lower infant mortality is nice, though I'm not sure you can causally link that to government size.

There is no such thing as free college. Someone is paying for the professors' food, lodging, etc. I think what you mean is that the entire populace pays for college their whole lives, which doesn't sound much different from the federally subsidized student loans we already have lol.

Is healthcare really "better" there or do you just mean people get it "free"? Wait times in single-payer systems suck in general. See the VA.

You can get a job with short work hours and lots of vacation in the US, you'll just have to accept that you won't get paid as much as people willing to be productive more consistently. Unionized jobs are a good place to look if that's what you want.

"What is the point of government if not to assure that all its people have lives worth living?" That's something you have to do yourself. No amount of comfort makes a life worth living.