Quote Originally Posted by xman View Post
Sure, I'll bite.
I'm almost totally on side with this. My only addendum would be that government should not necessarily be small, just moved out of our way. If we're really going to make government support what it means to be human for all the excitement and foible that it is, it needs to do a slightly different job and exalt those who are down. We all benefit from having a strong society.
I agree wholeheartedly. For society to be strong and stable, government needs to insure that people never reach the desparate stage where they become a burden or a threat to society. This is not just the right thing to do from a moral standpoint, but it also makes economic sense.

Quote Originally Posted by xman View Post
A quick example: here in Vancouver, BC they cut funding to mental health institutes and we ended up with ballooning already massive homeless and addiction problems costing more in resources to deal with than if we had just kept the hospitals going. Thankfully the data is coming in on balancing the budget and, still being so close to the former situation, even the hawks are taking note. Education is another, perhaps the most important, aspect where government should play a large role IMO. Let scholastic merit alone and not wealth be the determining factor of who gets to go to the best schools. The list could go on. I guess what I'm saying is that because our governments are in our way doesn't mean we should make them smaller. I believe that if we do that, some other entity, be it a warlord culture, a corporate one or something else, will simply take its place. I agree with making government work for the people rather than vice versa.
I think you and I agree, is that correct? (though maybe you are less cynic about human nature than I am)

Btw, this reminds me of that scene in 'the Gladiator' where senator whatsisname is accused of not being one of the people. His reply: 'I want to be a man for the people, not of the people.'