With all the talk of smaller, more efficient governments, it leaves me with questions about how it would work for a growing population, as very few countries are shrinking in population.
I do believe that an inefficient or corrupt government is wrong, and that governments must be flexible and change with the times.
What about ethnically diverse populations? Poor or rich?
Agricultural or forested or urban? One person's national treasure, which should be protected, could be another person's "playground" or resource to be exploited.
Would having local governments provide the best solutions to problems?
Should the national government distribute money to regions to divvy out?
What about really small towns or regionally sparse populations? Would they need to be absorbed into a nearby town or a regional government?
This is the foundation leading to the climate in which large social revolutions occur, and usually about every 200-250 years a new political theory and a redo of an old economic theory go into practice. Wait about 15 years for it to boil, and move to the mountains for about 5 more years. As societies get more armed, they tend to be a quite a bit more violent in those revolutions too. Not looking forward to it really.
Government for the people by the people would do little else except 'control' how corporations graze the sheeple. Then it can put everything out to contract 'for the people'.
I think you have hit one of the issues squarely on the head. It isn't so much an issue of "smaller" as it is more efficient government that is required. Our government offices and departments are anything but efficient and do anything but serve their constituents. Add to this so many could easily be called into question, challenged as to whether their very existence is even Constitutional.
Of course most of these challenges should be considered in light of modern day requirements of the nation. Just as the Constitution has been amended to ban slavery, to allow the vote to women, so must it periodically be reviewed and even amended to expand or contract the operation of government at a federal level.
Our government agencies should behave more like business entities. They should be more efficient. They should be smaller. Working for the government should not mean a job for life even when you don't perform. It should not require 3 people to do what it requires 1 to do in the private sector. We should not have hundreds of contractors doing work in our government agencies on a handshake and wink, we certainly should not have foreign born contractors doing work Americans could be doing.
Federal, State, Local government should work in partnership rather in competition.
by marinealways247 years ago
Open for debate to all. In the World, which country has the most efficient government and why?
by rhamson3 months ago
If there is no progress in changing the direction of our economic unbalance and the opportunity that has been a springboard into upward mobility, can we expect more social unrest? The US in the past has been a success...
by Josak3 years ago
One of the greatest criticisms leveled at socialist and perceived socialist nations is their high taxes, usually reinforced with the example of France and it's high tax rates under a newly elected socialist...
by Mahaveer Sanglikar4 years ago
Why there is poverty in specific people while others are well to do people? Who are responsible for poverty - the poor people themselves, Government policies or the system?
by ptosis3 years ago
"A constitutional amendment, which requires a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress (or a Convention under Article V of the Constitution) and ratification in three-fourths of all fifty states, would be...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.