> This same government with a 13% approval rating and that is universally despised in most everything they try and do.
Because there are many in and out of government that don't want the government to do its job, so that they can point at ineffective government and say "look, a private company [like mine wink wink nudge nudge] could do so much better than that."
Have you noticed that it is only American government (outside of dictatorships) that is highly despised by most of its citizens? Where is this anger from European, Canadian, Asian, South American citizens towards their governments? Could it be that those countries have a functional government that, despite failing in some areas, overall exceeds in providing basic necessities (i.e. healthcare) to its populace?
The idea that government will always fail is itself an unspoken assumption you are making. It doesn't have to be that way. We could have an efficient government if we wanted - the first step is to believe it's possible, like it has been possible in 100+ other countries.
I am not necessarily saying the government is doomed to failure, I just want to remind people that when they believe the govt. intervening will solve problems that they often are the cause of many problems as well.
As for your response that only the American government is highly despised by it is citizens I have to disagree with that, in fact the one universal feature I've found across all internet commentators, admittedly not a scientific survey, is that they all complain about their government, UK, Brazilians, Indians, in fact it often seems that the Chinese and the Russians are the people who love their government the most.
Beyond the internet you can also check out the riots and protests France had last year, generally not an example of people pleased with their government.
Ultimately however my argument against such was focused on a matter of principle and philosophy; however I am a pragmatic person and recognize I live in a real world and that compromise and discussion need to be had, I am cautioning against the simplistic thinking that "hey lets start doing x, y, or z to solve problem A, anyone who disagrees is a monster that hates people."
That kind of thinking leads to divisiveness, the Reds vs the Greens, shuts down discussion and leads to scorched earth tribalism.
Which that was what I was originally responding to, is the idea that because I have reservations around the idea of "just give everyone a house, food and healthcare" I am a miserly scrooge mcduck that hates poor people.
I don't think you're a bad person, or even poor that your philosophy is entirely wrong, and I don't think you hate people. I do however think you and I should focus on improving government rather than removing government - for example, rather than saying we can't have a free lunch program, let's figure out other places taxpayer money is being wasted, eliminate those leaks, and use the money we get from that to fund this program. Let's automate as many functions as we can (for example, online driver license renewal and mail-in voting) to reduce the labor costs while reaching higher levels of efficacy. These are just some examples, but I think there is an intrinsic part of your argument - that government is the cause of problems - that assumes that any action taken will have consequences that outweigh the good of the action. I don't believe that is the case if we are truly attempting to solve the problem and not, for example, just taking into consideration a set of KPIs.
Because there are many in and out of government that don't want the government to do its job, so that they can point at ineffective government and say "look, a private company [like mine wink wink nudge nudge] could do so much better than that."
Have you noticed that it is only American government (outside of dictatorships) that is highly despised by most of its citizens? Where is this anger from European, Canadian, Asian, South American citizens towards their governments? Could it be that those countries have a functional government that, despite failing in some areas, overall exceeds in providing basic necessities (i.e. healthcare) to its populace?
The idea that government will always fail is itself an unspoken assumption you are making. It doesn't have to be that way. We could have an efficient government if we wanted - the first step is to believe it's possible, like it has been possible in 100+ other countries.