The 'Big Government' thread: US vs EU, and whether either (or both) are doomed
 

Let me start by saying I'm not that well-read on the technicalities of how the government works here in the US, and I don't know shit about how it works in Europe, but as an armchair philosopher I find the "big vs. small government" question a fascinating and important one to ponder.

There seems to be a reasonable consensus these days that the US federal government is at an all-time low in its ability to function, and at least close to an all-time high in corruption. At the same time though, most people continue to view the federal government rather than the state governments as the place where the majority of big decisions (health care, drug law, gun control, abortion, immigration, etc.) should be handled. This seems to me increasingly a bad idea, not only because of the current state of politics here, but also because it hinders the kind of political experimentation that is important in the evolution of a legal system.

Much of Western Europe now seems to be leaps and bounds ahead of the U.S. in terms of everything from health care to public transport to internet service, which basically boils down to better governance, fairer business regulations and a far greater synergy between the public and private sectors (whereas in the US those sectors have become quite antagonistic to each other). What I'm curious to know is what role you guys think the political unification of Europe has had in this, if any -- whether the European Union is making '21st-Century governance' more possible for Europe, or whether it may actually be setting up Europe to be 'United States Pt. 2' by centralizing power too much and letting the wealthy elite run amok with the system. There is, after all, a major public debt problem over there, and of course many parts of Europe were hit hard by the recent financial crisis, which seems indicative of a predatory financial industry similar to the one that exists in the US.

There seem to be a whole lot of pro-EU people out there, so perhaps those of you could explain what you consider advantageous about the EU, and how it can avoid the problems that the centralization of power seems to have caused in the US. Also, if you think the problems in the US have more to do with the structure of the American government, or the American business culture, or even something else, feel free to make that case.

Hope this isn't too tldr, and thanks to anyone to responds!

Europe and the US aren't the only 'Western World'... I thought I'd comment on this briefly because in Australia and New Zealand we have similar government set ups to those of Britain and EU (as opposed to the US).

We have had free public healthcare for decades, fantastic synergy between the public and private sectors, free education, la la la. I am strongly against centralising power because I think it can run into a wealth of problems, just like you have mentioned. I like that in Australia for example, the Prime Minister doesn't have the final word but there are a variety of different political parties that work together to make decisions. I think most people over here have a high quality of life, and that is reflected through the fact that many of our cities are ranked highest in the world for livability. Basically, I think the system we have is working incredibly well. I do think there is a strong link between societal issues and the structure of the government.

I wasn't excluding Australia and New Zealand on purpose, I just don't find them very relevant to the thread topic (and not because I specifically named the US and EU in the thread title). There have been some pretty clear shifts in power in the US and EU over the past few decades, and the causes, effects, pros and cons of those shifts are what I'm really interested in discussing here.

There have been some massive power shifts in Australia and NZ as well. Australia's current Prime Minister was the first Labour member to come into power after years and years of Liberal-dominated government (Liberal means something completely different here to what it means in the US). We too have had massive health and education reforms.

But fair enough if you just want to focus on the US and Europe. I just thought you were interested in the different government power structures and how it affects societal problems so I thought I'd contribute.

I'm sure I could have better articulated what I had in mind for the thread, but I didn't mean for it to be an all-round discussion of the structure of government in general. I'm mainly interested in comparing scopes of government -- i.e. federal vs. state, or sovereignty vs. globalization. I'm fine with any discussion of Australia, New Zealand or whoever inasmuch as they are relevant to that concept.

On a related note, is there anyone who thinks it would be a good idea to abolish Medicare, Medicaid and all federal-level health programs in the US and let the States handle them individually? Our country seems unique among Western ones in having especially strong libertarian sentiments, and to try to brush over that sentiment by applying a blanket health care program across the whole country just seems really out of line with the purpose of our governmental structure and its ability to accommodate different facets of public opinion. Hawaii and Massachusetts already have their own state-wide universal health care programs I believe, and it seems logical enough to let the other liberal-leaning states follow suit.

In general, I'd really like to see more diversification in the role of government between the 'red' states and 'blue' states. I think it would also go a long way in making the federal government functional again to not have all this partisan drama crippling the political process.

if w cancel those programs, you'd get taxed less, and there would be elderly corposes filling the streets.

I'm sure you like your money, I know I like mine. But some day we're going to be too old to work also, and what you've got in your Social Security check will not cover your medical bills.

Kilvorkian said it best, when we make it illegal for you to kill yourself, and when we don't have some social programs, we validate the Nazi execution plans of letting people wither and die with no dignity to their names.

Its a vicious lack of experience to suggest everyone should be self-sufficent, especially when talking about joint-risk ventures like insurance, and if they aren't self-sufficent "oh well." This reminds me of the video games I used to play where top-opinion suggested you should prep for mistakes, because if you are, you're not of a high enough caliber to be reading their opinions.

Not preparing for mistakes and disasters is text book, it isn't practical. And being from MA I can tell you first hand, regulation and price controls must be in the legislation because right now we're going broke trying to pay illogical and senseless premium increases.

Adam Smith never accounted for Greed. I'm guessing because he never really worked.

As someone who's been heavily involved with socialist organisations in Ireland for some time, with all the biases that brings, I'd like to point out that the libertarian model the US suscribes to is by no means a good way to run a country. By not intervening in society, the US has created a society with minimal social mobility, in which there is no genuine safety net for the least-well off in society, breeding a host of social problems such as violence, poverty, crime, drugs, and the ghettoisation of communities. This disaster also applies to healthcare, where libertarianism has only suceeded in bring economic chaos through bankrupting the general public by leaving them incapable of meeting the costs of a private industry which cares only about profit. If individual states had always been allowed to act as they see fit, the US would still have racial segregation(in a best case scenario), and persecute Native Americans. A strong central government is crucial to ensuring that the common man is not let down by his local adminstration and the will of those around him.

i think the biggest issue is neither big or small government but individual attitudes. the whole 'the gubmint done stole my money' angle. the indirect greed of refusing to pay taxes into social programs that would help the legitimately less fortunate because someone doesn't feel that living in a middle class environment is good enough for them because they want to keep comparing themselves to the obscenely wealthy rather than turning their perspective the other way and seeing just how much more they actually have than a lot of other citizens.

basically Europe doesn't seem to have the egocentric mentality the States wrap themselves up in - I am number 1, not we, *I*.

if people really want to abolish taxes and social programs (for fear of being labeled socialists or communists) then why bother with any form of government at all? what else is the point of government besides the betterment of your society? if you don't have any inclination to help your fellow citizen and creating a better place for future generations then what are you really doing besides crawling up your own ego's butthole? why not revert back to tribalism and survival of the legitimately strongest? (aside from the fact that you would lose big time)

I find that interesting because I heard it mentioned only in Aemrica they speak collectively like "We the people..." It just might come down to personality types of the person talking, some are team players and think as "We" and some are egocentric and think "I'm numero uno."

actions speak louder than words?

i'm not all about gloom and doom, cuz i think humans will eventually wake up, but the monetary system isn't designed to last, and the stuff about making big changes in economic policy you see on TV are signs alluding to aged and decrepit movements made by a very old system. we've outgrown it, and it's kind of like it's on a feedback loop... but the feedback is debt. the whole world is in debt. so we scramble and try and make this stupid system keep working.... and fail. and try. and fail again. we will eventually wake and see that technology and intelligence can make it such that arbitrary claims of ownership against pieces of the universe are obsolete.

^i totally agree, but i don't think it will ever happen until we all start speaking the same language across the planet. and not Esperanto

Oh wow, replies.

I've got about three minutes available to me right now, but at a glance it seems like a lot of you are misinterpreting my justification for a 'libertarian' federal government. Personally I'm in favor of tax+spend and the social safety net, but there are still a lot of people in the US who aren't, and I think it's fucking up our political process to have both sides bickering over which side gets to have their views imposed upon the entire country. Why not let the States decide individually?

These lyrics express pretty well how the vast majority of most Europeans feel about the European Union!



:laughing:

The United States is a strong federal union, it was this union that allowed it to become one of the strongest superpowers in the world.

The EU is a currency union, unless its member are willing to concede more power to a German dominated government in Brussels, it is less likely that it will survive. I personally feel that their is a good chance Greece will leave the EU, you can only impose austerity on a nation state for so long. It would be better for them to seperate and spurt economic growth through currency devaluation.

Ironically I feel the United States governing weakness is its decentralization of power. Take the current administration, even though Obama has won the election, his ability to pass legislation is limited because the Repulicans hold the House of Representatives, it would be even worse if they owned the Senate. Any corporate lobbiest reform is sure to get watered down.

In the Parlimentary system of the UK, Canada and Australia there is no such limitations on power, you win a majority and you rule the roost, public outcry and fear of losing the next election becomes your legislative restraint, there is no constant haggling and deal brokering with the opposition.

I hold some sympathy to confederate/regional viewpoints, but unfortuantly too often their policies directly effect their neighbours, or minority groups within a state. Gun control is ineffective unless its federal ban, because semi automatic rifles can easily travel through borderless states.

It was also conferderate power that allowed racist Jim Crow laws to exist a centruy after slavery was abolished, it was strong federalist power that ended it through the Civil Rights Act of 1964, so me, a strong federalist who supports the centralization of power,

The fear if Greece leaves, is who'll be next! At the moment the trapdoor is shut but if Greece fall through the EU can survive, BUT there is still the lingering concern that other much bigger and struggling economies like Italy and Spain could follow Greece and that is the major concern of the EU.

When comparing the eu and the states it's important to remember how they came about. Europe as centuries upon centuries of separate cultures, countries and governance, finally unifying somewhat in just drafting up some rules to allow easier trade and some bull**** red tape, while the states has spent the majority of it's time as one country, one identity and most laws going to its supreme court or what have you.

The resistance to things like state healthcare seems to be because some seem think of things on a scale.

<-Freedom and capitalism-----------------------------socialism-communism--facism-->
And that state healthcare in any form is a step towards the evils of socialism, even though europe isn't even socialist.

They simply can't accept that the countries doing best on the HDI and healthcare, quality of life etc all have both state and private healthcare and mixed economies.

But then again, there is a legitimate reason to be against "big" governments in terms of bailouts, overspending etc.

I would say that the European Union is falling more than the US although US has a huge debt.

I agree, the EU will survive without Greece, but I believe it will have to make moves towards being a cohesive political union if it is going to survive longterm.

If Spain or Italy faulter on their debt payments, you can expect a banking crisis to hit the EU, ecspecially in France.

Pretty sure they became a 'superpower' by not getting bombed back to the stone age during World War 2 and being able to rapidly convert their military manufacturing industry into a more domestic oriented manufacturing industry to help rebuild Europe. It provided a huge boost to the economy but too many lacked the foresight to recognize that it was a temporary bonus rather than a reflection of a new-era. Eventually Europe would finish being rebuilt, then what? Oh yeah that's right, all those 'crap' jobs got outsourced to Mexico, India, or China.

It was more of a right place at the right time situation. As is becoming more and more apparent as that economy starts tanking.

I also don't think this whole US - EU thing is a fair comparison. It's like comparing a single band vs. a record label.

Out of interest which is the single band and which is the record label?

I'm guessing the U.S is the single band.

That's what I thought, but isn't the record label the all powerful entity and doesn't that describe the USA better than the EU?

Yes of course, but it was the fact that the United States was a union with a strong centralized government that made this happen. Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration was probably the most centralized in the history of the United States. It would have been less likely if the States were a loose confederation.

Were talking about the merits of federal union versus a confederate union, right now the US operates as a federal union, the EU a loose confederation of independent states bound by no central governing force.

The issue of confederation versus federation has been a major issue of debate since the begining of your history....you did fight a civil war over it, but what can i say, I'm a Alexander Hamliton kinda guy, a federalist at heart, guilty as charged.

Its a tough question. While obviously stronger, federalist governments are more efficient in pretty much everything, they're also significantly more dangerous to the rights of individuals than a decentralized power. Take for example some of the legislation passed in the United States in the last couple of years. The rights of civilians, and our right to privacy, has pretty much disappeared entirely under the various acts to protect us from 'terrorists'. (See: Freedom of Speech Zones, NDAA 2012 Section 1021 and 1022, The Patriot Act, Homeland Security Act, the new definitions for terroristic or suspect activity, etc). People before me have cited a large federal government as responsible for the protection of individual rights- such as the rights of blacks and women in the United States. I should point out, with rare exception, the vast majority of rights in the United States were hard earned. Women got their right to vote by protesting, being raped in the streets and being beaten. Blacks have a similar tale to tell, with leaders such as Malcom X and Martin Luther King forcing governments to acknowledge their rights. Without their actions, the federal government would never have changed anything. Why? Because governments only give power where its necessary to appease the civilian population. This is true throughout history. Had the tumultuous 1960s not ended with reasonable legal progress for the rights of Black Americans...? The federal government would have faced a massive uprising.

I do not think you can really compare the US to the EU as you are comparing one government to a system of many. And in that group of many IE EU there are some governments that worked well and some that did not work as well. Take Greece for example..this is a country where very few people pay their taxes, where public-sector jobs are secured through family ties and where contracts for work, public or private, are rarely signed without someone in a position of power asking for a backhander. And then they believed that by going into a single currency, this would somehow make things better?

Than you have a country like Sweden. I am Swedish and yes we do pay high taxes. But I do not really care about that in so much that I know I will get my taxes back in the forms of subsidized preschools, free school, free university, a universal health system, public transport, etc. I do not have to worry about unemployment thanks to my union and the money I pay to them every month. So the one benifits the many and many think like this which benifits the country as a whole. I know there are *****s in the system but there are *****s in every system.0

So there you have two different government systems and two different ways people of a country think..that makes sense because we are from two very different countries. Therefore it is hard to compare the EU to the US.

I do not think it really comes down to the specific governments as it is to the people that elect them (unless you are in a dictatorship and then of course it does not really matter). But I do not think that the US will really improve until its people start accepting the fact that if they want a system that includes universal health care, better public transport, social security..you are going to have to pay for it. That means raising your individual federal taxes much higher than what you currently pay. And if this causes an uprising and people protest that they cannot possibly do this than there is no point even talking about universal health care or higher welfare situations for the individual because it is not going to happan.