zlacker

No kidding about the schizophrenia. I don’t understand how people can implore the government to do more such as UBI or universal healthcare yet in the same breath complain about not being able to trust the “police state.” I doubt we can have privacy and a strong effective government. A strong government will be one that’s in your life a lot. Whether it’s under the auspices of good intent or not is probably irrelevant by that point.

edited for clarity

>>Stylus+(OP)
I might be one of these people?

I want a government that trusts us and respects our rights (e.g., non police state) and that helps to provide for the poor and vulnerable (e.g., healthcare).

I don't see any conflict between these goals. Our medicare providers are not flying drones and kneeling on necks.

>>ghetto+82
There is massive conflict between the goals when power and money enter the discussion.

I’m also not sure where what you describe exists and how it’s implemented. I am curious to learn if anyone has any sources on such a place: great healthcare, highly involved citizens and low government intervention in daily life. And no, I’m not being sarcastic, I am sincerely wondering about it.

>>Stylus+(OP)
Doing a monthly direct deposit with no strings attached seems like a pretty un-invasive way for the government to support its citizens. Agree with you on universal healthcare, though.

>>Stylus+I2
Scandinavian countries generally seem to tick those boxes, although I'm not sure what your threshold is for low government intervention.

>>Stylus+I2
I thing "government intervention" is too nuanced and expansive of a concept to meaningfully debate as if it were one thing.

It would include at least:

Police-state policies. Examples: laws against voluntary drug use, policies like stop-and-frisk, our incarceration rate, restrictions on contraception, etc., seem particularly in your face. Historically, the military draft. I'd oppose these.

Basic public-safety policies. Examples: Laws like speed limits, or driving while intoxicated, or some limits on gun ownership (e.g., folks with a history of violence shouldn't have machine guns). These will always annoy some people, but I'd support most of this.

Environmental and business regulations. These really make some folks mad. But I'm strongly in favor of clean air and water, solvent banks, safe working conditions, etc., and think regulations here are really important.

Social policies. Many people were/are violently opposed to school integration, affirmative action, gay marriage, etc. But I think we have a moral imperative to view and treat { blacks, women, gays, jews, ... } as real people, and history has shown that we won't do this on our own.

I certainly can see some cases where there are overlap between these. Example: government needed an army to enforce school integration. But, mostly mostly these are orthogonal, and lumping these into one "big government" bucket just makes it a muddy issue.

I could be wrong.