Why Big Government is Good

Post Reply New Topic

FACT: A government is only bad if it is undemocratic.

It doesn't matter how big and powerful a government is. If you can vote out a bad leader, it isn't tyrannical.

The "big government" myth has been made up by greedy billionaires who don't want to pay their taxes.

I dare you to refute this.

YOU made the claim, so YOU support it, bucko.

people don't like big government because big government often means far reaching regulation, which can be good for welfare/public health, but not so good for business growth.


it can also mean huge bureaucracy, and personally i could do with less of such, for more often than not, they are unorganized and frustrating to try and navigate.

transparency is always an issue, and i believe The People ought to know what their government is up to. for a big one, that may be harder. (not that it is always easy in a small gov't)

Democracy and big government leads to mistreatment by f the minority by the majority rule. Putting aside the fact that the majority is so very easily lied and mislead into supporting bad things.

Also a lot of the famous dictatorships started with democracy that kept getting bigger and bigger government until that big government forces finally stripped away the democracy part.

People don't want the government of stupid majority sheep to decide their every second in life and control everything about them.

Are you saying that the majority of people are stupid?

That's pretty pompous. You might want to pull your head out of your ass.

This is Donald Trump, the current POTUS. But don't worry if you don't like him, you can vote him out, in exchange for one of the wide selection of individuals behind him.

perhaps not stupid, but easily influenced and not very knowledgeable on how to govern.

perhaps that's the whole idea behind a representative democracy (or "democracy")

then you get people claiming they know better then their constituents, or who don't listen to them (regarding their interests), and problems arise.

Big government is the only force capable to force things onto individuals and corporations- like healthcare or environmental safety laws.
since there is no other body capable of enforcing things of this magnitude... for better or worse, big government it must be... actual, looking at climate change, pollution and a globalized economy producing an enormous wealth gap, i.e. problems of global capitalism, a supernational institution would be needed.

and no, I don't really like the idea either, but our institutions need to grow to measure up to the problems they are meant to fix.

I judge rulers by what they do, not how they come to rule.

Funny, historically those two concepts tend to be one and the same:
Ramses II of Egypt came to power as a pharaoh, ruled as a pharaoh;
Peisistratus of Athens came to power as a tyrant, ruled as a tyrant;
Darius of Persia came to power as a king, ruled as a king;
Pericles of Athens came to power as a politician, ruled as a politician;
Phillip II of Macedon came to power as a despot, ruled as a despot;
Julius Caesar of Rome came to power as a revolutionary, ruled as a revolutionary;
Octavian Caesar of Rome came to power as a nobleman, ruled as a nobleman;

If someone's approach gets them power, there's absolutely no reason for them to change the approach, thus the approach will remain the same unless a counterbalance forces the change. Not to mention rulers are merely figureheads for the underlying institutions/movements/bureaucracies that prop them up, the ruler doesn't change unless the system itself changes. The greatest example of this is Alexander: he conquered the Persian empire and large swaths of tribes leading to the Hindu Kush mountains, but when his underlying support changed (his army), it didn't really matter what he wanted he was forced to pack up and go home.