Exploring a Different Path

I am taking an economics class in college with a professor who considers himself as a economic historian with New-Kensyian leanings. He loves discussing current events. Our discussions usually boil down to the fact that we need either smaller government or better governance. I consider myself a libertarian so I usually argue the smaller government side, but when I bring up points about the inefficiencies and failures of the government he argues that that doesn't mean that we don't need them. Our discussion then moves on to how could we improve the governence in the US. It is at this point that our discussions don't yeild much. I just wanted to explore with the forum what the possibilites of creating better governance in the US. Is their anyone with ideas on how to make the government more efficient, more accountable, etc. Im asking you guys to put aside small government to explore the possibilites of a better big government.

Absent the market mechanism and choice - the act of prefer some types governance to others - how can we define what "good" government is? Voting seems like a weak substitute for this.

I do agree, though, that there is nothing wrong with arguing over how seized taxes are spent. It would be nice if they were never taken to begin with, but there isn't much we can do about that. It does not seem at all immoral or illogical to me to want that money to be spent in better ways than not. Clearly some governments are more corrupt and wasteful than others, and given equal sizes, "good" government is better than "bad" government. I'd prefer to argue for less government, but I don't mind those who argue for the one we have doing a better job, so long as they do not argue for its expansion.

Ultimately though, I don't think you will ever get good governance. Government is essentially a firm which profits from providing the "service" of allowing people to be free from its violence. It tries various ways to make this service seem more attractive, but in the end it will take as much as it can get away with (just as normal businesses price their services to yield the most profits).

The only way to make changes to the governance of the U.S. is to already be the governance of the U.S. It is a fully-closed system. Only the political class in power can determine how the political class gets in power.

For someone on the outside, the only way is revolution. And then that leaves us with the question, what kind of revolution do we want? 

Gellerm:

I am taking an economics class in college with a professor who considers himself as a economic historian with New-Kensyian leanings. He loves discussing current events. Our discussions usually boil down to the fact that we need either smaller government or better governance. I consider myself a libertarian so I usually argue the smaller government side, but when I bring up points about the inefficiencies and failures of the government he argues that that doesn't mean that we don't need them. Our discussion then moves on to how could we improve the governence in the US. It is at this point that our discussions don't yeild much. I just wanted to explore with the forum what the possibilites of creating better governance in the US. Is their anyone with ideas on how to make the government more efficient, more accountable, etc. Im asking you guys to put aside small government to explore the possibilites of a better big government.

The first question one should asks himself is: why is government inefficient? And is it not efficient for someone (like, say, itself)? Maybe the answer can explain why believing that government can be acting for the best is just a sad dream...

I will quote a Skousen's paragraph in 'Persuasion vs. Force' -http://www.mskousen.com/Books/PvF/pvftext.html:

"Convincing the public of our message, that "persuasion instead of force is the sign of a civilized society," will require a lot of hard work, but it can be rewarding. The key is to make a convincing case for freedom, to present the facts to the public so that they can see the logic of our arguments, and to develop a dialogue with those who may be opposed to our position. Our emphasis must be on educating and persuading, not on arguing and name-calling. For we shall never change our political leaders until we change the people who elect them."

If we change the way people think, couldn't we change, at least, a bit, the way politicians and government acts? So, I'd think that in order to make changes to the governance, a MORAL revolution, or a revolution of Ideas is needed.

Yes, the very moment most of people consider the state as it really is (a harmful parasite), it'll collapse, not able anymore to suck the blood of its victime. Almost without damages (almost :D) And on the contrary if by one way or another we suppress it in one night, it would immediately resuscitate. Because it exists mostly in the head of people. The problem is that it's a self-enforcing phenomenom: statism leads to the state, which in turn strengthens statism in the mind of the subjects