The Logical Conservative: Limited Federal Government

[cthulhu]

As evidence suggest that nations with top level federally centralised systems perform more effectively (all world leaders in public healthcare systems: Denmark, the UK, France operate centralised at the top level of government), isn't this evidence that your premise that a smaller top level government is flawed?

Evidence suggests that better functioning government is delivered with strong centralised control, so we can have some evidence that your first post in this thread isn't a steaming pile of bullshit?

[tzor]

As evidence suggest that nations with top level federally centralised systems perform more effectively (all world leaders in public healthcare systems: Denmark, the UK, France operate centralised at the top level of government), isn't this evidence that your premise that a smaller top level government is flawed?

You need to consider two things: The first is the national category; as far as healthcare is concerned, EU countries are not "top level" as that would be the EU itself which is at the top level. France would be at the level the states are in the United States. When you consider the ramifications of inter EU migration and something called 'Health Tourism' you can see how some nations in the EU can move their problems to other nations in the EU.

Spain Bears Brunt Of 'Health Tourism' NPR: Morning Edition Jan-19, 2010

Most countries in the European Union offer universal health coverage for their citizens. And when citizens of one EU country travels to or lives in another EU country, they also are covered. Now Spain says that rule is making it a victim of "Health Tourism" as more northern Europeans choose to retire to its Mediterranean coast.

So let's wait and see, shall we? I mean I can see all those EU "nations" desperately wanting to loose all their powers in order to give it to a more powerful and centralized top level government at the EU level. Oh wait, they are not. I wonder why?

One man's nation is another man's state.

France: Population 65M
Califorina: Population 37M
New York: Population 20M
Denmark: Population 6M

The above example is why arguments like this are silly, nations, states and even organizational structures are, for the most part arbitrary. How can you compare a government with a size smaller than that of New York City, to a nation that is the size of two of the biggest states in the United States, to that of the United States itself?

And that's my second argument. You need to compare like to like, structures to structures based on populations. Governments generally run on dis-economies of scale, larger doesn't always mean better, and in fact it often means they are more removed from the people and the problems they need to solve on a day to day basis.

[MGuy]

So... Are you saying that individual States should pick up health care or be more socialized because the foreign governments are smaller than the US?

[Username17]

So... Are you saying that individual States should pick up health care or be more socialized because the foreign governments are smaller than the US?

I believe he is suggesting that all nations in Africa should give up their rights to foreign policy and have all treaties ratified and enforced by the African Union.

-Username17

[Cielingcat]

I think he's quite explicitly saying nothing at all in an attempt to convince us that he is correct in some vague, ill-defined way.

[tzor]

I generally say what I mean and I generally mean what I say. If you want to compare “government A” to “government B” in terms of vertical separation of powers you need to compare like to like, that is to say that you need to compare a given layer of government with all the layers below it and above it, especially when those layers above it might have a say and factor into the specific test you mean to use to compare systems.

This isn’t the thread on health care; health care was only suggested as a way of comparing government A to government B.

So you can’t really compare “France” to the “United States” because of the vast difference in the two nations, population wise. (Vertical separation is derived from population size.) Logic may suggest you compare the US to the EU (population 308 M / 501 M respectively).

In cthulhu’s post he attempted to compare the health systems of Denmark, and France with the United States. The order of magnitude jumps in these three examples should be enough to show you can’t do that. What’s good for the city-state is not always good for the nation-state.

I should point out that the complete argument for centralism would push the total control all the way up the ladder (why stop at the arbitrary “nation”) which would imply absolute control over everything at the hands of the United Nations. Anyone interesting in arguing for this notion?

[Kaelik]

Oh yeah, and the countries have to have exactly the same number of people, not close to.

And they need to have the exact same area.

And in the exact same longitudinal range.

And latitude.

And have the same name.

And the exact same demographics.

What I'm trying to say is, I will reject any comparison you could possibly make for some bullshit finiky reason that doesn't actually have any effect on anything, because I'm Tzor, and that's how I try to dodge out of any possible attempt to use evidence to evaluate my statements as true or flase.

[Username17]

I should point out that the complete argument for centralism would push the total control all the way up the ladder (why stop at the arbitrary “nation”) which would imply absolute control over everything at the hands of the United Nations. Anyone interesting in arguing for this notion?

Some sort of Internationale? I could get behind that.

But I don't think even complete centralization argues against or precludes delegation or competition for lower positions. Even ultra-conservatives like General Pinochet still have Captains and Colonels.

-Username17

[violence in the media]

I should point out that the complete argument for centralism would push the total control all the way up the ladder (why stop at the arbitrary “nation”) which would imply absolute control over everything at the hands of the United Nations. Anyone interesting in arguing for this notion?

Well, how would this be much different from the United States states and feds model? How homogeneous is your hypothetical one-world government?

[tzor]

Oh yeah, and the countries have to have exactly the same number of people, not close to.

Whatever Kaelik, now you are just being stupid. I think that there is a universe of difference between the argument that you can't compare the numbers 6, 60, and 300 with the notion that the numbers have to be exactly the same. I'm more than willing to compare France with New York and the difference is only a factor of 3 (although comparisons to Califorina is probably better and that's only a factor of 2). Triple the population of France and you are still not anywhere close to the US, and the US can contain 50 Denmarks (oh wait it does contain 50 ... oh that's being silly again)

[ubernoob]

There's no real difference between administering care to ten billion people and ten trillion people. In either case everyone is just a bit of code in the system that may or may not have a specific doctor that sees them regularly and everyone is paying for the care somehow.

Seriously, the difference between 1 and 10 million people is completely trivial. The efficiency of the system is what matters because more people means more taxes to pay for it.

[Juton]

A much better number is GDP per capita for each country, not it's particular population.

United States, $45,800
Canada, $38,600 (2007 Est.)
Denmark, $37,200 (2007 Est.)
France, $32,600 (2007 Est.)

And some states in particular
Massachusetts, $50,735
New York, $48,076
California, $42,696

Massachusetts is the only state I know of with a health care system approaching universal. As we can see the US should have a lot more income, it should be able to afford universal coverage. Tzor could argue that the US is geographically much larger than France or Denmark, or even Europe in general, but Canada is even better and we can make universal coverage work. Tzor could also argue that while US GDP per capita is higher, actual government income is lower because of lower tax rates but we all know the US budget is massive.

So the US has the money to universalize it's health care, what it's lacking is the will to do it.

[tzor]

There's no real difference between administering care to ten billion people and ten trillion people.

World Population Estimate: 6,797,872,928 at 22:29 UTC (EST+5) Jan 21, 2010

That's billion with a 'B' Dr. Evil; and it's only a single digit. There is, in point of fact a massive difference, it's harder than you might think. But you do have a point, it's equally as pathetic to administer the earth as it is the United Federation of Planets. Between the Vulcans and Frengi it's enough to make most sentient beings go insane.

[tzor]

Massachusetts is the only state I know of with a health care system approaching universal. As we can see the US should have a lot more income, it should be able to afford universal coverage. Tzor could argue that the US is geographically much larger than France or Denmark, or even Europe in general, but Canada is even better and we can make universal coverage work. Tzor could also argue that while US GDP per capita is higher, actual government income is lower because of lower tax rates but we all know the US budget is massive.

So the US has the money to universalize it's health care, what it's lacking is the will to do it.

I thought the thread on health care was next door. Massachusetts is one of the few states with a health care system "approaching" universal. (They have cooked the books to make it seem that way.) But it's like a jet engine that's really low on fuel; crash and burn of the system is inevitable.

Canada's system is .... wait I'll get back to you on that ...

Technically speaking I shouldn't answer that for at least 12 weeks ... hopefully he will have gone abroad for his answer.

[ubernoob]

There's no real difference between administering care to ten billion people and ten trillion people.

World Population Estimate: 6,797,872,928 at 22:29 UTC (EST+5) Jan 21, 2010

That's billion with a 'B' Dr. Evil; and it's only a single digit. There is, in point of fact a massive difference, it's harder than you might think. But you do have a point, it's equally as pathetic to administer the earth as it is the United Federation of Planets. Between the Vulcans and Frengi it's enough to make most sentient beings go insane.

You act like me deliberately picking a figure larger than the population of any country in the world was not deliberate. Thanks for the straw man and missing the point.

If you couldn't figure it out: Once you get past the point where a single person doesn't know every person in the system (aka tiny numbers), you're using file systems and have some form of distribution and allocation of responsibility, so additional people after that point make absolutely zero (0) difference to the way the system is managed as a whole.

[tzor]

If you couldn't figure it out: Once you get past the point where a single person doesn't know every person in the system (aka tiny numbers), you're using file systems and have some form of distribution and allocation of responsibility, so additional people after that point make absolutely zero (0) difference to the way the system is managed as a whole.

But you have it all backwards, government isn't top down, from the divine to the peope, but bottom up, from the people up the heirarchy. So let's use your argument for a moment; once you get the point where the average person are familiar with every person in the system (I don't want to say "knows" but at least identifies with them on the local level) you have the first level of division of government. Once you have enough of those divisions where a representative from each division can reasonably form an assembly, you have the next level of government (and so on).

On the local level, I simply don't give a flying fuck about San Francisco. I don't even give a fuck about it at the next higher levels. I can live with their representation at the Federal Level, just as I can live with France's representation at the UN level.

[ubernoob]

If you couldn't figure it out: Once you get past the point where a single person doesn't know every person in the system (aka tiny numbers), you're using file systems and have some form of distribution and allocation of responsibility, so additional people after that point make absolutely zero (0) difference to the way the system is managed as a whole.

But you have it all backwards, government isn't top down, from the divine to the peope, but bottom up, from the people up the heirarchy. So let's use your argument for a moment; once you get the point where the average person are familiar with every person in the system (I don't want to say "knows" but at least identifies with them on the local level) you have the first level of division of government. Once you have enough of those divisions where a representative from each division can reasonably form an assembly, you have the next level of government (and so on).

On the local level, I simply don't give a flying fuck about San Francisco. I don't even give a fuck about it at the next higher levels. I can live with their representation at the Federal Level, just as I can live with France's representation at the UN level.

This post does absolutely nothing to refute my point. Please read my post again and reply to it instead of straw manning. In terms of administration of healthcare, there must be A system for dividing labor once you get above the 'small town doctor' level of population. Once you are dividing labor, it makes no difference whatsoever the absolute number, but only the costs relative to the benefits (which have to do with per capita GDP and costs).

Stop being retarded and think. I didn't say jack shit about where the decisions get made, but only that your argument that the absolute size actually matters in providing healthcare is bullshit.

[Crissa]

I'm not sure what would make, per person, it cost more to administer to 65 million as 300 million.

In fact, shouldn't it be less?

As it stands, we pay 2x as much as France per person, and we don't actually manage to treat all 300 million, even though they do count in the calculations...

-Crissa

[tzor]

Note to ubernood: Look up, the title of the thread is "The Logical Conservative: Limited Federal Government." It doesn't say at what level health care should be located. It doesn't say this is a healthcare thread. So keep bringing it up; I'm going to flatly ignore it. Sorry.

[violence in the media]

Tzor, given your belief in limited federal government, when do you believe the government should have the right to step in and tell the locals that they are either Doing It Wrong or that they are Not Allowed to do things that way?

In your mind, should my loyalty as a citizen lie primarily with the United States? The state of Florida? Seminole County? The City of Casselberry?

Is it wrong for Senators and Congressmen to try and benefit their states/districts at the expense of others? Or is it only pork-barrelling if the other guy does it?

[RobbyPants]

Note to ubernood: Look up, the title of the thread is "The Logical Conservative: Limited Federal Government." It doesn't say at what level health care should be located. It doesn't say this is a healthcare thread. So keep bringing it up; I'm going to flatly ignore it. Sorry.

I suppose while this is technically right, you still dodged his question three times.

[Username17]

That really sounds like a concession to me. Tzor's statement was that it was logical and reality based for conservatives to argue for smaller governmental units. The natural response of course is "Really? What thing could you have that would indicate that smaller governmental units performed better?" Or in other words: Show Me Teh Data.

So Ubernoob actually gave a genuine contribution: Healthcare. It has measurable costs, and measurable outcomes. And it's a thing that every single government, large and small, has a policy on one way or another (since all citizens live and die, even no policy is a policy in that instance). So you could actually get data back as to whether a more powerful and farther reaching federal government was "good" or not.

So that fact that Tzor refuses to talk about it indicates that he is conceding. At the very least he is conceding that an all-reaching nanny state is beneficial on that issue. Now, this does not say that an all reaching, all powerful, all centralized nanny state is the best solution for all problems - but I am pretty sure that since we are closing in on the 100 post mark and the original poster has not suggested one solitary example of something that is measurably benefited by having smaller governmental units, that the original statement that he had some logical, reality based reasons for his proposition is totally false.

-Username17

[Crissa]

I'd like to also point out that just because smaller government doesn't have a logical reason, does not mean it could not be a reasonable guideline or goal to have.

I go out of my way to be nice to slugs and snails, who eat my garden, which really I don't think I could make a logical argument of why it's important to be nice to them...

-Crissa

[Neeeek]

I go out of my way to be nice to slugs and snails, who eat my garden, which really I don't think I could make a logical argument of why it's important to be nice to them...

I'm sure you could. It just might not be related at all to why you actually do it.

[tzor]

No Frank, my initial argument was that it was logical to design a government top down, providing checks and balances separations in order to keep the vertical layers in the general scheme of a structured system. My years as a computer programmer has hammered into me the truism that structured systems are far superior than the single (I do everything) single routine. My years understanding business has also taught me that CEO’s that micromanage their companies are idiots and their companies generally do not do well.

Now let’s take it the other way; consider the United States as it currently exists, with a federal government with dreams of centralism. Congress has stopped being overwhelmed years (if not decades) ago; it cannot handle the workload it has given itself. Most of the legislation it passes is pre-written by lobbyists and are never even completely read by the members of congress, because they are too many and each one is too huge!

Consider that pile of manure that was called a “stimulus” package last year. While it was touted as “spending money immediately” in fact most of the monies were designed for this year and 2012 (gosh, those are election years, aren’t they). A logical top down approach (ignoring the general problem of what a federal government does when it doesn’t have the money in the first place and the biggest buyer of debt isn’t exactly your friend) is to distribute the money to the next level of the system, who in turn distributes the money to the next level of the system, to those levels that know exactly what systems can provide the biggest bang for the buck in their area because they are aware of the particular problems in their area (and no two areas are the same). When you have to cure the ills of trees, it is better to know the trees and not the forest because otherwise you will end up trying to cure all the pines of Dutch elm disease.

That’s why I’m ignoring “health care” for now. In effect health care is regulatory in nature and the ability of people to move from one region to another does demand that uniform regulations are a good thing. Just as it is a good thing that all stop signs are designed the same, and all stop lights are designed the same. (Although there are some places where right on red is allowed and some where they are not and some where it all depends. Total uniformity is not always the optimal situation.)

In the United States, a significant (in fact the key element) of vertical separation was eliminated with the 17th amendment to the Constitution. By being the elected members of the state governments, Senators gave the states indirect powers over legislation, the executive branch (senators approve executive appointments), treaties, and even the judiciary. Once the people directly elected senators in 1913 the rapid rise of the central federal government was assured.

As a result the 10th amendment “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people” is generally ignored by the federal congress and the federal executive. To understand how radical this change is, consider the current health care bills in congress. You would agree that this change is certainly more radical on the federal level than the ban of a specific product nationwide. Yet in 1933, the prohibition of booze required an amendment to the constitution, not a law of congress or even worse a decree from some agency in the executive branch.