Right-sized Government
There is a lot of controversy over big government.
What does that mean?
Is there a correct size for government to be?
How would you determine the right size? By population? By complexity? By economy?
More specifically:
What is the minimum function and authority that a national government must have?
What is the maximum it should be allowed to have?
What is the optimal scope and power and responsibility for an effective government?
What does that mean?
Is there a correct size for government to be?
How would you determine the right size? By population? By complexity? By economy?
More specifically:
What is the minimum function and authority that a national government must have?
What is the maximum it should be allowed to have?
What is the optimal scope and power and responsibility for an effective government?
Comments (51)
I think every state in the world uses this method. This is due to the main cause of a "democratic representative", thus the fact that we all are "represented" in the number of seats. I guess it is the fairest system. A government is big or small depending in the number of the population, because that's how the seats will be represented in the institutions.
Quoting Vera Mont
It is not about power but authority. Power can lead to corruption and breaking the law. A government with solid authorities has effectiveness. There are tons of examples regarding this issue, but where we can see it clearly is the way each state faced the Covid pandemic. In my humble opinion, Australia and the Aussie government were the most effective in this problem. They did not hesitate to block the frontiers and protect the citizens. The decisions were taken uniformly by all the governors, so here is a good example of effectiveness in a state. They are far away from bureaucracy.
Big government means inefficient government, lots of bureaucracy and red tape are the results.
The right size should be one that is able to deliver results without being overstretched by human resource and be combined with private sector when it comes to the maintenance of its infrastructure and property portfolio as well as general maintenance in terms of cleanliness and taking care of Rubish. In addition government has to provide education and policing on behalf of its citizens.
As these functions are designed to be delivered by government, the public use of resources becomes inefficient by the sheer size of the task.
In the UK for example we have the free National Health Service (NHS) which is one of the biggest wastes of taxpayer money, almost like a black hole.
The politicians have the power to change it but they simply dont have the acumen to do so or the know how.
The efficient, equitable, and uncorrupted control over the means of production, distribution and exchange for the benefit of all of the citizens it represents.
To ensure the basic need and securities of its citizens are met.
To provide free healthcare and education for all it's citizens from cradle to grave.
Quoting Vera Mont
Completely open governance, fully scrutinised.
Quoting Vera Mont
The maintenance and enhancement of the well-being of its citizens.
I will define "big government" as a government with greater power, control, and authority to oversee a country's economic and social aspects. Generally, we already accept that a government will be entirely responsible for foreign politics, the military, law enforcement, and many other areas. So, this term is usually just referring to the government's economic and social policies, that's how I see it.
Often, the alternative to the government solving a problem, especially in the West, would either be that the community solves it or that the market (capitalism) will solve it.
My thoughts are that the community doesn't have that kind of power, it can only do so much and is not a realistic option when you consider the scale of many of the problems facing society. It's totally unrealistic and thus absurd to look to the community to police big businesses or solve massive social/economic issues.
Capitalism is relatively good at some things, as the concept of profit has proven to be quite effective compared to the other models that have been seriously attempted. However, that profit motive only applies to the company itself, and definitely not the workers or society more generally. Businesses will pursue profit and expansion, and big businesses are exceptionally powerful, many consequences that will be devastating for our society aren't priorities, and private citizens can do nothing about that.
Frankly, the idea of "small government" is ludicrous. The problem is that if not the government, then who? One can argue "government is inefficient" and so on all they like, there's literally nobody else but the government, the alternative is just to leave things unregulated and essentially do nothing.
Countries that do not embrace "big government" are going (or will continue) to fall behind in terms of the quality of life of their citizens. As automation gets better, the need for "big government" will get worse, and automation is getting better very quickly. Only the government can address this issue of distributing wealth to the people, businesses will endeavour to deliver profits for their shareholders, at the expense of everyone else. This problem has been apparent for decades now, and the inevitability of automation should be obvious to all.
Besides automation, there's just nobody with the power & will to solve societal issues of scale, and if the government is too small to do anything about these issues, then they simply fester. There are many great examples of how lacking in humanity businesses with a profit motive can be. You allow businesses to run prisons, or have them reduce homelessness, and they naturally go find ways to abuse powerless people for profit. The government doesn't have that profit motive, and by the way, when they DO have a profit motive, they're just as terrible, that's why corruption is so devastatingly bad.
I don't know what kind of problems "big government" can even be argued to cause, but I think the bigger the better, and that big government is a prerequisite to a positive future.
That's a chart of US federal government departments.
Are they all necessary? If not, which one(s) should be abolished, and how should its/their function be allocated?
This is a really good, nuanced, response. Much better than mine was going to be. Maybe I'll go back and think of something better to say.
But they won't do that. They know they'd be ignored and marginalized.
So they have to talk about "collectivism" and "communism" and "statism" as great evils, throw in Stalin and Mao, add a touch of individuality, a dash of "freedom," stir. The product? What's today called libertarianism, I suppose.
So that's their devil: groups. The "collective," the demos. All vague and abstract, because anything more specific reveals some interesting patterns. Anything that's happened in history is because of governments (collectives), unions (collectives), social welfare programs (collectives), political movements like civil or women's rights (collectives).
They're that guy who doesn't want to pay union dues but is happy to accept the benefits the union offers. So they'll complain endlessly about taxes. They'll whine about how crappy everything the "state" does.
Yet when it comes to corporate America? Silence.
Poor wages? It's a contract you enter, so you can just quit and get another job.
Monopolies? That's because of the government.
Massive transfer of wealth to shareholders in the form of stock buybacks? Well, that's their right as private owners.
Just once I'd like to have an honest discussion with these kinds. It'd start by them simply stating, "I'm against democracy, I don't want to be part of society, and I don't care about what happens to people I don't know."
At least I'd respect that.
None.
The functions should all remain. The manpower should be trimmed however as I have no doubt to the inefficiency of government personnel.
The same goes to private enterprise too, plenty of time wasters watching YouTube when they could be doing something productive.
This seems entirely context dependant. Depending on your culture, level of technological developments, and means of governing I could see very different systems being appropriate.
I used to live in a state where, if your town was under a certain population, you had to have an Open Town Meeting form of government. This is a style of government big in New England where every adult resident of the town is part of the legislature. They set the budget, appoint the select board (3-5 people who act as the executive and hire staff), etc. That works fine with a few thousand people, especially if most people are content/busy enough not to bother showing up for meetings and politics aren't very divisive, but it's not going to work if you have sectarian strife* or a larger population.
*Not that I haven't heard horror stories of a handful of residents acting like zoning debates in their town are basically on the same level as the Thirty Years War, it's just that luckily no one else cares as much as them about which street the Taco Bell drive through opens onto or whatever...
How about the UK? Anything superfluous?
It seems to me easier to say that big government is a problem, or to vote for a candidate who promises to "trim the fat", than to decide which particular services we'd rather do without. If we don't know what our government is actually doing, are we qualified to criticize its performance?
One of the oddest trends in the history of politics is the idea that man must create an institution which then confers rights and privileges upon man. I think its clear that those who have rejected the divine right of kings in name have adopted it in practice, affording the same sovereignty as the king to the government, allowing it any number of positive interventions in the lives and affairs of others as if it wasnt run by men. Its no wonder that beneath its self-aggrandizement the government is simply a mechanism for taking money from one persons pockets and putting it in another.
In rejection of this, the state should be concerned with securing the natural rights of human beings and making justice accessible. Beyond that it should not go.
But one cannot say that the government should disappear. Where man has evolved for millennia to depend on himself and his fellows, he is now waist deep in the process of domestication, whereby he is trained to respond favorably to the government, even in its most evil capacities. By now people have become so dependant on the state, that there is a class of primates who were never weaned and are unprepared to live without the zookeepers embrace. I dont think there is any turning back.
Where do these 'natural rights' of human beings come from? What is 'justice'? In nature, the best adapted genetic material survives in offspring; some organisms find mutual protection in societies and evolve social orders. I do not believe 'justice' exists as anything but a social concept elaborated by humans. How else can it exist? As soon as a concept is defined in human terms, it ceases to be natural. Yet how can undefined concepts be secured?
Quoting NOS4A2
Is the transfer of it from pocket to pocket not the sole and singular function of money?
Quoting NOS4A2
I agree. For good and ill, civilization exists, mixed metaphors and all. It will not turn, but it can be destroyed.
They come from men. The idea is that given the evidence human nature provides, such is enough for a reasonable man to conclude what rights ought to be conferred on him. One neednt examine a law to discover that man ought to have a right to life, for example. He can do that by considering his own nature and that of others.
As for justice, Im not sure what it is, but I do know what it isnt. Justice is the absence of injustice, which is discoverable wherever it is found and with the same evidence and reasoning. One doesnt need a law or declaration of human rights to conclude that it is wrong to punish someone for something they didnt do, for example. Children recognize unfairness at a very young age. And so on.
And yet they disagree, both regarding their own nature and 'rights'.
Quoting NOS4A2
And yet they readily commit unfair acts from a young age, unless their elders prevent it.
So? It is not in our nature to agree on everything. Thats why I afford them the right to disagree.
Great. So if they say it's okay to kill the people they don't like, you afford them the right to do so. Even if you are one of the the people they don't like? And if they disagree about affording you a right to to disagree - which people very often do - you're okay with that, too?
This discrepancy of what we consider rights and justice is the reason societies make laws.
A bunch of lawyers and politicians may be of secret societies, but no society Im a part of. Truth is you and I do not make any laws, and since we are a part of society, society does not make laws.
Politicians that talk about oversized government definitely don't talk about what size they'd be comfortable with. I suppose if there could be a politically unbiased group of business people that try to increase efficiency in places that are designed to make money versus to help people survive which is a main purpose of governance. I suppose it is hard know the exact benefit of certain government investments in the shorter term.
Well somebody made them! Evidently, that somebody wasn't you, because laws are quite a bit older than you, but it was somebody who was also part of society, and new laws continue to be made by people who are also part of society.
Quoting TiredThinker
Yes, it's hard to know. Ideas grow out of previous ideas, until something that seemed like a benefit to all the people becomes something that benefits a very few people at the expense of many, or something that seemed to protect all the people turns into a money pit that protects nobody. Situations, institutions, innovations and developments tend to get away from us, get out of control. And there is no readily available villain to blame: this is what people do.
If we look closely, however, at some of the developments, we might ask whether certain specific subsidies are serving the people or a special interest; whether some agencies are redundant - whether, for example, the United States really needs 32 separate intelligence agencies.
The problem of deciding what's the right size is discovering what actually exists and what it actually does.
I worry concern over size is driven by paranoia over being watched like China watches its citizens, or at least AI does. If the government programs get things done more efficiently than individuals can than all the better.
It's not just AI. Citizens really are being watched, by several agencies. Paranoia in the US - and, incidentally, but not accidentally, lots of other countries - is not merely in the skittish citizens regarding their government, but in governments regarding their citizens and one another and financial interests and political organizations. There is enough paranoia to go around - and enough bad shit to cause it.
But I really do believe that even the intelligence agencies of which I don't necessarily approve could be more efficient and less expensive if they pooled some of their information, reducing redundancy. One problem, of course, is that all departments and agencies are jealous of their autonomy and funding. This also holds true of welfare agencies: UBI, issued by a single central authority would save a shitload of effort, data storage and processing and money over the half dozen or more social service agencies that now administer pensions, welfare, unemployment benefits, etc. Some other programs, too, could be amalgamated, for example all the departments having oversight of commerce and trade.
Quoting TiredThinker
Even with the duplication and overlap of functions, it seems that government services are as efficient as private ones. It depends on the organization and pre-existing system. This is a fairly exhaustive study in various social services in many countries. Both private and public organizations can do things - pretty much everything - better than unorganized individuals can - which is probably why civilization was invented in the first place.
My focus is more on electric companies and things that literally are ridiculous to have redundancy. Basically a government regulating monopoly. As far as intelligence there should be less redundancy, but I fear one big intell agency without any groups that can investigate them as a safe guard.
32 intel agencies without oversight are a lot more dangerous and expensive. Nobody can investigate them, by their very nature. And every developed nation has them.
Quoting TiredThinker
I don't understand what you mean by this. Electricity generation seems to be done by power & gas corporations, with feet in at least two energy sectors. And the government involvement, in the Us, seems to be more state than federal level regulation. But I'm not familiar with a lot of the issues concerning electricity.
Hello Vera, I'd like to take you up on that. It seems to me that we're asked to choose between an increasingly globalized state/authority or self-imposed inadequacy in government services; bigger or smaller. Easy arguments could be made for either, if from nothing else than the often irritating decorum and zeal of each end's proponents.
I would like to explore a different path, focusing on a hypothetical decentralizing of the federal government. This would be one in which the US Fed, and the power that it has been amassing since the nation's conception, would be be returned to the states, resulting (sooner or later) in a more localized government system.
There are lots of arguments for increasing federal to global authority structures, and they often strike me a boring and unresponsive (The nation plows through 34 Trillion of debt and it's still not big enough). It is as if all debate on state-to-individual relations is settled and the rest in follow through and the pesky details of managing the great congealing. On the other end, I don't know that minimalists realize how dependent many are on the current (and soon-to-be) expanding state, and often seem to dramatically underestimate the hazards of a downsizing.
At any rate, if you want to get into a thinking exercise about going smaller with government I am happy to oblige.
The United States is the 3rd largest country - by population - on the planet: 339,000,000. We are, and have been, the most powerful nation militarily. We are the 4th largest country by area. We have the largest GDP on the planet.
A complex society in a complex world requires a complex government capable of meeting very large and unexpected threats to our stability and security. Sure, once we had a small government -- back when we were much smaller, much weaker militarily, and much poorer. We were once a largely undeveloped country. By WWI that wasn't really true anymore.
Distribution of resources WITHIN the governmental agencies could be organized along different lines. Less money should be allocated for defense. We need a defense -- no doubt about that -- but I assume it could be considerably more efficient and effective. It won't get more efficient and effective if they keep getting a blank check (so to speak) every biennium.
Numerous programs (created by Congress) transfer wealth from the large working classes to the tiny wealthy classes. Tax laws are a good example. These are unfair to start with, and moreover reduce the productivity of the economy.
A lot of people think that the government, especially the President, is in charge of the economy. When the economy is poor, they blame the government. When it is good, they praise themselves. The economy is everybody, and while banks, government controls, and so on can speed up or slow down the economy, nobody is "in charge" of it.
It is, I think, quite normal to blame the government. It is usually distant; it is not, and probably can't be, entirely or too transparent (at least given the society we have now). Because the government is powerful, people fear it a little (or a lot, depending on their activities). A lot of what the government does, and does well, does not touch everyone, so many people think the government does nothing.
The chain that supports you from an endless, ever tormenting plummet is in fact only strongest as its weakest link. Which in this case is the most unruly child given equal rights as the most ardent scholar enjoys.
One who values life, rather the civil order that ensures such life is reasonably expected to continue the following day, would do well to acknowledge such realities.
The problem I see with that is how differently states have been doing so in various government responsibilities. Some have been less democratic and less concerned with citizen's rights than others. Should they really have more power? How do you organize revenue collection and the funding of services? How do you finance the many, many wars? Can you even keep the union going? (States rights have nearly wrecked it once, and there is a very strong movement to change the constitution.... and of course T***p wants to tear it up and declare himself Chancellor or something.)
Quoting Elysium House
I'm not sure I know enough, but there are several issues I'm interested in.
Like: Does the nation still work? Should it be a federation at all?
Quoting BC
I agree. I'd been wondering about all the perennial conservative campaigns calling for a reduction in the size of government, without specifying where why or how. If they do get into power, the end up appointing political supporters instead of experts to head departments, cutting social services, privatizing schools and prisons and expanding the spook and military agencies. No savings, no return to the taxpayer. The liberal ones are accused of bloating government, because they tend to add (or repair) social services, but they're afraid to cut or reduce the 'security' departments, the military or the foreign meddling. It looks like a no-win for liberalism.
Quoting BC
Absolutely. An awful lot of it seem to be offensive. Not to mention wasteful.
Quoting BC
Allowing both money and industry to be removed from the country, while the working people and the government both lack the mobility of corporations and making people pay extra for services their taxes are already paying for.
Quoting BC
Maybe not, but some sectors have more control over it than others. Especially when trade unions are legally kneecapped while the boss class is given greater license.
Quoting BC
It does touch them, but they don't seem really aware of how much and how necessarily. The anti-'Obama-care' protest sign comes to mind.
I very much doubt that Americans (or Canadians, for that matter) really know much about their government and what it does, or how.
That is, indeed, a problem. many people would be even more enraged if they knew more about the government. The rage would be distributed along familiar lines.
Backing up a bit. You are right about some sectors having more control over the economy than others. Big corporations on down to penny ante shops account for a great deal of the economy. Businesses tend to be anti-union, unless they have been forced to accept organized workers and found they can live with them. The deck is heavily stacked against workers and unions. Congress and legislatures have passed laws hindering (or preventing) workers from organizing.
But that's the economy we have, now. I don't like it; I'd like to see it changed into democratic socialism; I've worked toward that end, without seeing a shred of progress, over the years.
There is a lot of confusion about government. Take water for an example. A chap needs clean fresh water on tap, and sewage and waste water drainage and treatment. A chap needs not to have his neighbours' sewage flooding his home or his yard. or his clean water supply. So because water flows and moves from here to there, all this needs to be organised by someone and as long as it is done, one is willing reluctantly to pay for it. Whoever organises it, provides it, and takes a chap's money for it governs the chap. So when water and sewage is 'privatised' there is not less government, just less democracy. This ok to the extent that we all agree about what we need and don't have to care about the fine details. Except when the owner doesn't do the job properly, and then one needs to govern the governor.
Difficult question, but I have a thought that could narrow it down. It requires a bit of background.
First off, one thing that no one wrote out but that I assume many of you know is this: Government workers are more inefficient not only due to complexity but also due to less pressure in the workplace. Governmental positions are "comfy". This is because that their efficiency isn't directly tied to their continued "survival" as it is in a more profit driven workplace.
However, many of the decisions that governmental employees handle have ramifications that show results far in the future, while normal companies will expect their profit to come within a decade. Therefore, you can't force governmental positions to follow concrete financial results like you do in the private sector.
Here is how I would "determine the right size": Any work that will have its full ramifications shown within a decade can be entirely profit driven. Work that has longer spanning ramifications should have more and more governmental oversight. If you are planning for future generations you may as well let governments handle the entire thing.
Sidenote. I do think there are more sectors where governments should step in. Work that requires a lot of cooperation on a large scale and work that is morally difficult to handle. There are probably more examples.
I always want to ask?
Where did westerners think that 'big' government or 'big' institute concepts come from?
Even the 'God' concept in religion is a 'big thing'.
But Chinese civilization doesn't have a religious concept.
'God' is 'Tao' or 'Enlightenment thinking', which is science.
This may be true or not, depending on the leadership, organization, executive decisions and employee satisfaction. I've known corporate departments (computer programming, from an insider) to be quite inefficient, due to department heads desire for promotion or vested interest or incompetence. And I've known civil servants (as an insider) to be conscientious and dedicated.
As well as the other way around.
Quoting mentos987
It's true, government ought to make long-term investments in the welfare of people and in infrastructure. However, this not the case when an administration lives and plans from election to election, and when government officials either or reward patrons with government contracts and executive appointments or outsource functions to the private sector (under the guise of efficiency and economy) In my experience, every time something was privatized, the cost rose while service declined.
Quoting mentos987
Like nursing homes? and youth rehabilitation?
*sigh!*
This is one of the bad things that needs counteracting, but that is a separate question.
Quoting Vera Mont
No..
Youth rehabilitation + full ramifications shown within a decade => does not add up.
For nursing homes, the results are faster though.
Both of these also goes into the: Quoting mentos987 since both of these handle people that are vulnerable.
Nursing homes need governmental oversight and youth rehabilitation need it even more.
I thought it was competition that made for efficiency in the private sector.
Competition for profit, yes. The profit is what drives it. You would not care that your rival was doing great if they did not also cut into your profits.
Does to the government officials taking the kickbacks and campaign contributions. Quoting mentos987
Exactly!! Profit for outsourced services comes out of the budget which comes out of the tax revenue. Profit, therefore, can only be had at the expense of service.
Well, this isn't about the size of the government.
Quoting Vera Mont
I believe this is often the case but efficiency matter too, more than you would think. Public sector work is not as efficient (in general).
At a rough estimate, I'd say that the private sector is about 15% more efficient in all they do, without any reduction in quality of the work. Sadly, they like to be even more efficient, and achieve this through reducing quality.
In social services, that usually means low overhead - like fewer salaries, no union, shorter staff training, cheaper safety precautions, food quality, laundry, leisure activities and fast turnover. Not ideal for the client/victims.
Quoting mentos987
If that's your conviction, I won't attempt to change it.
I have worked in both sectors.
Did an edit in the last post btw.
Private work is driven by profit.
Public work lack drive.
I think you could easily expand on any of the issues you raise here, and even go much further! Concerning the idea that different states do things differently, I think thats part of the draw. Experimentation rather than over-arching uniformity. This, of course, opens the pandoras box as to different ideas about what citizens rights means, since your take (or a New York take) may very well be different than mine (or a Idaho or "Arkansas" take).
Should we be allowed to explore these differences, or is it winner takes all on concepts like justice, freedom, etc. brought down from on high? The old top-down or bottom-up approach. Trade, war, culture, government administration . . . these would all have to be dramatically re-worked or wholly revised. The potential (and even probable) problems of such an undertaking are clear . . . but whether or not it COULD be done is less clear to me. As for the should it be done, well, I think that warrants an investigation into the possible advantages of a successful transition towards such a localized power/authority system of administration.
It seems this may be a bigger topic than we can get to here, so Im planning on starting a new discussion narrowing things down a bit. We could debate whether the nation as is still works, or if it should be a federation at all, but I think my proposed thought experiment would have to neglect these questions to maintain focus. If the experiment is seen through though, in theory, well arrive at a much better starting position for those questions (having established alternative options and their potential viability).
Thanks for the ideas!
It's not experimentation. The far right is in lock-step.
Quoting Elysium House
I'm using my notion of democracy, freedom of speech, equality and individual liberty as a guide.
Quoting Elysium House
It's winner takes all in elections, many of which are either rigged or corrupted in many instances, and in the US, badly designed in the first place. Obviously, the second part is a matter of opinion, but the first part is well documented.
Quoting Elysium House
Good idea.
I have worked in both sectors, here in Australia, and I have spent significant time working with senior executives in banking and law, along with years spent working in media and some television. And advising government on social policy.
There doesn't appear to be much difference in motivation, wastefulness or competence in both sectors from what I can see. Humans sometimes take short cuts, settle for easy, get things wrong and make lazy choices in both sectors. Public work is often driven by immense scrutiny and rigorous KPI's that make the private sector look tame. Private work is often about friendships and alliances that support sloth and complacency. Overall I think both sectors will suck unless they are overseen by leadership dedicated to transparency and continual improvement.
These both sounds like bad workplaces, I dont have experience of such. For me, both private and public has been fine, but public is more relaxed and private has higher tempo and efficiency.
Quoting Tom Storm
This may be the truth to my experience too, hard to tell.
I definitely wouldn't mind just completely getting rid of the US Senate. Having a chamber based on arbitrary borders where a 2/3rds majority is required to do anything is ridiculous and helping to drive the deterioration of the state.
Then the House is way too big. People don't actually discuss anything in large numbers, they just acts as cliques. People [I]can[/I] be smart, mobs are dumb. A lot of damage is done by Representatives who come to Washington to play act as "outsiders," doing nothing but protest antics. When you're one of 435 you don't feel responsible for success. I'd say 18 is about as big as you'd want to go on a deliberative body.
Since you need specialized committees, you need more than 18 legislators, but some sort of tiered system could deal with that.
I might also just clear house and get rid of local law enforcement and make it a state/national affair. It'd be worth it if only to abolish police unions.
I would emphasis the importance of history of a society here, which defines also government culture. Past history is something that has made us what we are now and the political situation in the present.
I understand that the question is only about size. Yet minimal government means simply that there has to be institutions that do take care of the things that somewhere else would be done by the government.
Is the country a tiny nation state or a larger confederation or federation with autonomic regions? Autonomy brings in usually a lot more size, but sometimes this might be a very good thing. If the country is small, then centralization works well. In fact, some tiny places like Monaco can quite easily go with the monarch having a very large role: if the citizens can when in need simply have an audience with the monarch, many of themselves will support the monarchy and be against democratic representation. Why would you need democratic representation, when you can meet the leader yourself if you want and he or she really will listen to you?
Quoting Vera Mont
This one is simple: to have recognition from it's peers, other sovereign states.
You, Vera, and your friends can claim to establish a country of your own and hence not have to pay taxes or follow the rules of the country you live in. Yet if "Vera Mont's land" would be recognized by the majority of other sovereign countries, your existence might be a pain in the ass for your former country. Or perhaps not, your independence could be used as an example of just how benevolent your former country was when granting your independence along other states. Obviously "Vera Mont's land" ought to have good relations with the country that surrounds it (or hopefully you live on the seashore).
Quoting Vera Mont
More difficult. Perhaps I'd resort to something like Max Weber and say if the citizens are happy with the control, then it's OK.
Quoting Vera MontThat optimality depends quite a lot of the history of the country, the governance culture, the geostrategic situation of the country. Things like that. Not an easy issue to optimize.
The way it's set up now, I agree. Having an 'upper' or second house to check the work of the legislature is not necessarily a bad idea: it could point out aspects of a bill that had been overlooked, add safeguards, present long-term consequences that may not have been considered. It could perhaps represent regional interests and vulnerabilities - if it were not rigidly partisan. I can imagine a senate made up of retired government officials, civil servants and jurists who have experience in dealing with the practical fallout from legislation, who could maybe prevent future mistakes.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Amen!
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Hence committees. But 18 for 332 million is asking rather a lot of each representative. If you have small numbers in legislature, you have hopelessly huge numbers in each constituency. Changing it to a tiered system would mean representatives voting for representatives, etc., so the original voter is altogether lost in respective majority votes. I'd much rather have proportional representation at the constituency level and direct representation of each electoral district.
I'm pretty much okay with 435, or even more, if they each actually represented their district, rather than just the segment of it that - by whatever method - voted for the party that took the prize. Especially when there are only two parties to consider, and candidates get their marching orders from the party leadership rather from the voters.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
On that subject, you could get a long, rather involved argument, but that would be a derailment.
Quoting ssu
Ex-colonies have a different situation from long-established nations. New countries like the US, the Republic of Angola and Argentina can start their history from sort-of-scratch. that is, their past comes from the geography and native peoples of the region, plus the colonial power(s) that have taken control, plus the changes brought about by colonial rule, various conflicts, the means and method of achieving independence. On that palimpsest, whichever faction holds the power at the moment of declaring nationhood can write the prologue for that nation's history. None of those things - not the foregoing forms of government, nor the new constitution and legal code - determine the actual size and scope of the new governing structure.
Quoting ssu
:rofl: We actually designed and had a flag made. Our home business was called Montland.
I doubt it would have created any problems for Canada, since we did not actually secede and there are very few laws we would have refused to abide by - and three of those have been changed in the meanwhile. (I know it was intended as a hypothetical example; just revelling in the aptness of it.)
Quoting ssu
Unfortunately, 'the citizens' of most nations are not all of one mind. They tend to divide into factions, some of which are unhappy with whatever the current arrangement happens to be, and those divisions are far too easy for disruptive or self-interested entities to exploit.
No, it's not an easy issue to resolve!
Yes, this would be a great idea. If you had strong (perhaps legislatively mandated) guilds/associations for each large sector of the economy (e.g. health, agriculture, entertainment, etc.) you could put members into that chamber as well so that it isn't all former government employees.
Any sectoral guilds would need to be subdivided into independent organizations for labor/management (maybe also one for middle management). Then, each sector would send their representatives, which would always be evenly split between labor and management reps (middle management is nice as a tie breaker). Such reps wouldn't be popularly elected, but the labor and MM reps would be elected by millions of workers across a huge swath of the population, so close enough.
Maybe, but that's already the case. Right now it's 1:770,000, on average, more like 1:1,000,000 in some places. This precludes anything like the "knowledge of how people feel" that local politicians might get.
A very solid majority of Americans don't even know who their representatives are, and this is true even among those who voted in the prior election. If there weren't so many, people would have a much easier time keeping track of who actually represented them.
Plus larger districts would make Gerrymandering virtually impossible, while also making it far less likely that people who are extremely far away from the national median voter get into office.
To be honest, I don't think there is much value in representatives "representing" their constituents. In practice, they have never actually done this, and it's unclear if it would even be a good thing to have a state run "according to popular opinion." Direct democracy isn't just a bad idea because it would require too many elections.
The big benefit of elections are that they keep leaders accountable. Mess up enough and someone else gets a turn.
I'm less and less convinced that democracy is a good in and of itself. If my hypothetical fantasy nation could look like Denmark, but have its leaders picked by some technocratic processes, or it could look like Ecuador, but have free and fair popular elections, I know which one I'd pick. And which one I'd rather live in too.
Edit: City councilors with ward representation often really do try to "represent" their wards. The results aren't good though. You get bad decision making because people are worried about what is good for the part and not the whole, and it ends up hurting everyone. 9 times out of 10 an at-large-council appointing a professional manager is going to function better than a popularly elected mayor dealing with ward councilors.
Elected by the membership of their respective guilds/occupations? I could go for that idea! Just as justices are selected by their professional organization (in countries not hell-bent on politicizing and monetizing everything they can lay hands on)
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Then what should they represents, and why bother having elections at all?
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
So, you're against democracy? Assuming Lord Vetinari is unavailable, what form of governance makes a better alternative?
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
To whom? By what means? Public opinion often turns against an incumbent, not because he's screwed up, but because he hasn't, and they're bored with uneventful governance and can be riled up to demand a change. Meanwhile, some slogans find so much approval among a noisy segment of the population, or an influential media platform, that whoever spouts them keeps getting support, even if he tells transparent lies, obtains large loans by false pretenses, cheats on his taxes, reneges on contracts, throws his friends under buses, stiffs his lawyers, gropes beauty contestants, threatens journalist and jurists, badmouths foreign leaders, betrays allies, intimidates election officials, pardons felons and incites a mob to storm the Capitol.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
I'd prefer a UN of small, tribal/regional units run by AI. But I doubt we can have either.