Since Reagan was elected in 1980, I've been hearing that "big government" is the enemy. The smaller the government is the better it is for the citizens. Government run programs are inefficient...etc. When I try to think of countries with little or no national government all I can come up with are countries like Zimbabwe, the Congo, Somalia, Iraq I think it would be safe to say that in these countries life is miserable, dangerous, short and cheap and genocides, famine, unemployment, corporate exploitation and guerrilla warfare are all too common. When I think of nations with strong militaries but little or no social safety nets, I think of nations like Myanmar, Iran, Pakistan, China and Russia where public dissent is rare, but only because it's dangerous to the people who engage in it. The happiest people in the world, according to surveys at least, live mostly in Scandinavian nations like Denmark, nations with very big, strong social safety nets. Does anyone know of any nation with little or no national, governmental support of it's citizens where most people are happy, healthy and care for each other? What nation would that be?
Other - Politics & Government - 3 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
You might want to look at Hong Kong, which is still governed independently (mostly) of China, and has tried to maintain a small government policy. Whether it works or not is really a matter of opinion. Other than that, I can only offer you the following articles, which might lead you to what you are looking for. I don't know of any government that is all small government, all the time, just a number that try and incorporate some of the policies into their own, including the US and New Zealand. Although, now that I think about it, you might want to look into some historic tribal governments for comparison.
2 :
You're kind of going this in the wrong direction. It's impossible to answer this question because you’re looking for responses that come from different angles. Truth be told, we need a government to run a nation and take care of its citizens. Sadly, we live in a capitalist society dictates the choices people make. You mentioned that nations such as Denmark were “happy,†that may be true, but you’re failing recognize that even though America and Denmark have “big governments,†they’re two different nations. So, what I’m trying to say is that, it’s not really about a big government or a little government, it’s about a government being capable of care for it citizens and its citizens willing to come together and move forward. In this day and age, our nation is too, “Liberal this, liberal that. Conservatives this, conservatives that.†We play the blame game too much and focus too much on defending ideologies that distract us from the real issue. I propose we all come together, accept one another, have fair politicians, listen to public interest, and have a government that takes care of its citizens. Sounds like an illusion, doesn’t it? Now, America is very, very different from a nation such as Denmark. America is a very capatilist nation, the way this nation operates is all about money.
3 :
The Republicans never did anything to reduce the size of government. That was a smokescreen for their real goal of more government interference in our personal lives and more wars. Currently, there is not a country where the government is small. However, such countries existed in the past, specifically much of the West during the late 1700s and the 1800s. Laissez-Faire was fantastically successful during its era, as living standards rose at an unprecedented rate. However, although everybody's living standards were far better than they had been in the past, not everybody's living standards rose at the same rate. Many people grew jealous of the great wealth of the most successful people and many people found God and decided that God wanted them to ban alcohol and sex, so big government was created. Yes, laissez-faire does not maximize happiness (because of the existence of anti-social traits such as jealousy, especially among people of less ability), but the goal is not to maximize happiness. The goal ought to be to maximize prosperity, which is what laissez-faire does best. Welfare states may work in the short term, but eventually you run out of money and become impoverished. Only a world of laissez-faire (preferably with better safeguards to prevent statist reactionaries from gaining power; either steep property requirements for voting or the abolition of government entirely might work) can be sustainable in the long run.
Read more discussions :
