How would you determine the right size? By population? — Vera Mont

I think every state in the world uses this method. This is due to the main cause of a "democratic representative", thus the fact that we all are "represented" in the number of seats. I guess it is the fairest system. A government is big or small depending in the number of the population, because that's how the seats will be represented in the institutions.

What is the optimal scope and power and responsibility for an effective government? — Vera Mont

It is not about power but authority. Power can lead to corruption and breaking the law. A government with solid authorities has effectiveness. There are tons of examples regarding this issue, but where we can see it clearly is the way each state faced the Covid pandemic. In my humble opinion, Australia and the Aussie government were the most effective in this problem. They did not hesitate to block the frontiers and protect the citizens. The decisions were taken uniformly by all the governors, so here is a good example of effectiveness in a state. They are far away from bureaucracy.

Big government means inefficient government, lots of bureaucracy and red tape are the results.

The right size should be one that is able to deliver results without being overstretched by human resource and be combined with private sector when it comes to the maintenance of its infrastructure and property portfolio as well as general maintenance in terms of cleanliness and taking care of Rubish. In addition government has to provide education and policing on behalf of its citizens.

As these functions are designed to be delivered by government, the public use of resources becomes inefficient by the sheer size of the task.

In the UK for example we have the free National Health Service (NHS) which is one of the biggest wastes of taxpayer money, almost like a black hole.

The politicians have the power to change it but they simply don’t have the acumen to do so or the know how.

What is the minimum function and authority that a national government must have? — Vera Mont

The efficient, equitable, and uncorrupted control over the means of production, distribution and exchange for the benefit of all of the citizens it represents.
To ensure the basic need and securities of its citizens are met.
To provide free healthcare and education for all it's citizens from cradle to grave.

What is the maximum it should be allowed to have? — Vera Mont

Completely open governance, fully scrutinised.

What is the optimal scope and power and responsibility for an effective government? — Vera Mont

The maintenance and enhancement of the well-being of its citizens.

I will define "big government" as a government with greater power, control, and authority to oversee a country's economic and social aspects. Generally, we already accept that a government will be entirely responsible for foreign politics, the military, law enforcement, and many other areas. So, this term is usually just referring to the government's economic and social policies, that's how I see it.

Often, the alternative to the government solving a problem, especially in the West, would either be that the community solves it or that the market (capitalism) will solve it.

My thoughts are that the community doesn't have that kind of power, it can only do so much and is not a realistic option when you consider the scale of many of the problems facing society. It's totally unrealistic and thus absurd to look to the community to police big businesses or solve massive social/economic issues.

Capitalism is relatively good at some things, as the concept of profit has proven to be quite effective compared to the other models that have been seriously attempted. However, that profit motive only applies to the company itself, and definitely not the workers or society more generally. Businesses will pursue profit and expansion, and big businesses are exceptionally powerful, many consequences that will be devastating for our society aren't priorities, and private citizens can do nothing about that.

Frankly, the idea of "small government" is ludicrous. The problem is that if not the government, then who? One can argue "government is inefficient" and so on all they like, there's literally nobody else but the government, the alternative is just to leave things unregulated and essentially do nothing.

Countries that do not embrace "big government" are going (or will continue) to fall behind in terms of the quality of life of their citizens. As automation gets better, the need for "big government" will get worse, and automation is getting better very quickly. Only the government can address this issue of distributing wealth to the people, businesses will endeavour to deliver profits for their shareholders, at the expense of everyone else. This problem has been apparent for decades now, and the inevitability of automation should be obvious to all.

Besides automation, there's just nobody with the power & will to solve societal issues of scale, and if the government is too small to do anything about these issues, then they simply fester. There are many great examples of how lacking in humanity businesses with a profit motive can be. You allow businesses to run prisons, or have them reduce homelessness, and they naturally go find ways to abuse powerless people for profit. The government doesn't have that profit motive, and by the way, when they DO have a profit motive, they're just as terrible, that's why corruption is so devastatingly bad.

I don't know what kind of problems "big government" can even be argued to cause, but I think the bigger the better, and that big government is a prerequisite to a positive future.

http://www.netage.com/economics/gov/images-org/gov_chart-landscape.pdf

That's a chart of US federal government departments.
Are they all necessary? If not, which one(s) should be abolished, and how should its/their function be allocated?

This is a really good, nuanced, response. Much better than mine was going to be. Maybe I'll go back and think of something better to say.

I wish all the "government is the problem" folks could just come out and say what they really feel: they're anti-democracy. "Demos" is a collective, too, after all. "The people," collectively.

But they won't do that. They know they'd be ignored and marginalized.

So they have to talk about "collectivism" and "communism" and "statism" as great evils, throw in Stalin and Mao, add a touch of individuality, a dash of "freedom," stir. The product? What's today called libertarianism, I suppose.

So that's their devil: groups. The "collective," the demos. All vague and abstract, because anything more specific reveals some interesting patterns. Anything that's happened in history is because of governments (collectives), unions (collectives), social welfare programs (collectives), political movements like civil or women's rights (collectives).

They're that guy who doesn't want to pay union dues but is happy to accept the benefits the union offers. So they'll complain endlessly about taxes. They'll whine about how crappy everything the "state" does.

Yet when it comes to corporate America? Silence.

Poor wages? It's a contract you enter, so you can just quit and get another job.

Monopolies? That's because of the government.

Massive transfer of wealth to shareholders in the form of stock buybacks? Well, that's their right as private owners.

Just once I'd like to have an honest discussion with these kinds. It'd start by them simply stating, "I'm against democracy, I don't want to be part of society, and I don't care about what happens to people I don't know."

At least I'd respect that.

None.

The functions should all remain. The manpower should be trimmed however as I have no doubt to the inefficiency of government personnel.

The same goes to private enterprise too, plenty of time wasters watching YouTube when they could be doing something productive.

This seems entirely context dependant. Depending on your culture, level of technological developments, and means of governing I could see very different systems being appropriate.

I used to live in a state where, if your town was under a certain population, you had to have an Open Town Meeting form of government. This is a style of government big in New England where every adult resident of the town is part of the legislature. They set the budget, appoint the select board (3-5 people who act as the executive and hire staff), etc. That works fine with a few thousand people, especially if most people are content/busy enough not to bother showing up for meetings and politics aren't very divisive, but it's not going to work if you have sectarian strife* or a larger population.

*Not that I haven't heard horror stories of a handful of residents acting like zoning debates in their town are basically on the same level as the Thirty Years War, it's just that luckily no one else cares as much as them about which street the Taco Bell drive through opens onto or whatever...

So far, nobody wanted to make government smaller - at least in the US. Just more efficient - without suggesting the means whereby it is to be accomplished.
How about the UK? Anything superfluous?

It seems to me easier to say that big government is a problem, or to vote for a candidate who promises to "trim the fat", than to decide which particular services we'd rather do without. If we don't know what our government is actually doing, are we qualified to criticize its performance?

One of the oddest trends in the history of politics is the idea that man must create an institution which then confers rights and privileges upon man. I think it’s clear that those who have rejected the divine right of kings in name have adopted it in practice, affording the same sovereignty as the king to the government, allowing it any number of positive interventions in the lives and affairs of others as if it wasn’t run by men. It’s no wonder that beneath its self-aggrandizement the government is simply a mechanism for taking money from one person’s pockets and putting it in another.

In rejection of this, the state should be concerned with securing the natural rights of human beings and making justice accessible. Beyond that it should not go.

But one cannot say that the government should disappear. Where man has evolved for millennia to depend on himself and his fellows, he is now waist deep in the process of domestication, whereby he is trained to respond favorably to the government, even in its most evil capacities. By now people have become so dependant on the state, that there is a class of primates who were never weaned and are unprepared to live without the zookeepers embrace. I don’t think there is any turning back.

In rejection of this, the state should be concerned with securing the natural rights of human beings and making justice accessible. Beyond that it should not go. — NOS4A2

Where do these 'natural rights' of human beings come from? What is 'justice'? In nature, the best adapted genetic material survives in offspring; some organisms find mutual protection in societies and evolve social orders. I do not believe 'justice' exists as anything but a social concept elaborated by humans. How else can it exist? As soon as a concept is defined in human terms, it ceases to be natural. Yet how can undefined concepts be secured?

It’s no wonder that beneath its self-aggrandizement the government is simply a mechanism for taking money from one person’s pockets and putting it in another. — NOS4A2

Is the transfer of it from pocket to pocket not the sole and singular function of money?

I don’t think there is any turning back. — NOS4A2

I agree. For good and ill, civilization exists, mixed metaphors and all. It will not turn, but it can be destroyed.

Where do these 'natural rights' of human beings come from? What is 'justice'? In nature, the best adapted genetic material survives in offspring; some organisms find mutual protection in societies and evolve social orders. I do not believe 'justice' exists as anything but a social concept elaborated by humans. How else can it exist? As soon as a concept is defined in human terms, it ceases to be natural. Yet how can undefined concepts be secured?

They come from men. The idea is that given the evidence human nature provides, such is enough for a reasonable man to conclude what rights ought to be conferred on him. One needn’t examine a law to discover that man ought to have a right to life, for example. He can do that by considering his own nature and that of others.

As for justice, I’m not sure what it is, but I do know what it isn’t. Justice is the absence of injustice, which is discoverable wherever it is found and with the same evidence and reasoning. One doesn’t need a law or declaration of human rights to conclude that it is wrong to punish someone for something they didn’t do, for example. Children recognize unfairness at a very young age. And so on.

One needn’t examine a law to discover that man ought to have a right to life, for example. He can do that by considering his own nature and that of others. — NOS4A2

And yet they disagree, both regarding their own nature and 'rights'.

Children recognize unfairness at a very young age. — NOS4A2

And yet they readily commit unfair acts from a young age, unless their elders prevent it.

So? It is not in our nature to agree on everything. That’s why I afford them the right to disagree.

So? It is not in our nature to agree on everything. That’s why I afford them the right to disagree. — NOS4A2

Great. So if they say it's okay to kill the people they don't like, you afford them the right to do so. Even if you are one of the the people they don't like? And if they disagree about affording you a right to to disagree - which people very often do - you're okay with that, too?

This discrepancy of what we consider rights and justice is the reason societies make laws.

A bunch of lawyers and politicians may be of secret societies, but no society I’m a part of. Truth is you and I do not make any laws, and since we are a part of society, society does not make laws.

Politicians that talk about oversized government definitely don't talk about what size they'd be comfortable with. I suppose if there could be a politically unbiased group of business people that try to increase efficiency in places that are designed to make money versus to help people survive which is a main purpose of governance. I suppose it is hard know the exact benefit of certain government investments in the shorter term.

Truth is you and I do not make any laws, and since we are a part of society, society does not make laws. — NOS4A2

Well somebody made them! Evidently, that somebody wasn't you, because laws are quite a bit older than you, but it was somebody who was also part of society, and new laws continue to be made by people who are also part of society.

I suppose it is hard know the exact benefit of certain government investments in the shorter term. — TiredThinker

Yes, it's hard to know. Ideas grow out of previous ideas, until something that seemed like a benefit to all the people becomes something that benefits a very few people at the expense of many, or something that seemed to protect all the people turns into a money pit that protects nobody. Situations, institutions, innovations and developments tend to get away from us, get out of control. And there is no readily available villain to blame: this is what people do.
If we look closely, however, at some of the developments, we might ask whether certain specific subsidies are serving the people or a special interest; whether some agencies are redundant - whether, for example, the United States really needs 32 separate intelligence agencies.
The problem of deciding what's the right size is discovering what actually exists and what it actually does.

I worry concern over size is driven by paranoia over being watched like China watches its citizens, or at least AI does. If the government programs get things done more efficiently than individuals can than all the better.

I worry concern over size is driven by paranoia over being watched like China watches its citizens, or at least AI does. — TiredThinker

It's not just AI. Citizens really are being watched, by several agencies. Paranoia in the US - and, incidentally, but not accidentally, lots of other countries - is not merely in the skittish citizens regarding their government, but in governments regarding their citizens and one another and financial interests and political organizations. There is enough paranoia to go around - and enough bad shit to cause it.

But I really do believe that even the intelligence agencies of which I don't necessarily approve could be more efficient and less expensive if they pooled some of their information, reducing redundancy. One problem, of course, is that all departments and agencies are jealous of their autonomy and funding. This also holds true of welfare agencies: UBI, issued by a single central authority would save a shitload of effort, data storage and processing and money over the half dozen or more social service agencies that now administer pensions, welfare, unemployment benefits, etc. Some other programs, too, could be amalgamated, for example all the departments having oversight of commerce and trade.

If the government programs get things done more efficiently than individuals can than all the better. — TiredThinker

Even with the duplication and overlap of functions, it seems that government services are as efficient as private ones. It depends on the organization and pre-existing system. This is a fairly exhaustive study in various social services in many countries. Both private and public organizations can do things - pretty much everything - better than unorganized individuals can - which is probably why civilization was invented in the first place.

My focus is more on electric companies and things that literally are ridiculous to have redundancy. Basically a government regulating monopoly. As far as intelligence there should be less redundancy, but I fear one big intell agency without any groups that can investigate them as a safe guard.

As far as intelligence there should be less redundancy, but I fear one big intell agency without any groups that can investigate them as a safe guard. — TiredThinker

32 intel agencies without oversight are a lot more dangerous and expensive. Nobody can investigate them, by their very nature. And every developed nation has them.

electric companies and things that literally are ridiculous to have redundancy — TiredThinker

I don't understand what you mean by this. Electricity generation seems to be done by power & gas corporations, with feet in at least two energy sectors. And the government involvement, in the Us, seems to be more state than federal level regulation. But I'm not familiar with a lot of the issues concerning electricity.

Another thing that complicates the industry is the fact that there are regulated and deregulated markets. Each state has particular laws relating to the energy market and whether it is regulated or deregulated. So the state you operate in will have a significant effect on what options you have.

So far, nobody wanted to make government smaller - at least in the US — Vera Mont

Hello Vera, I'd like to take you up on that. It seems to me that we're asked to choose between an increasingly globalized state/authority or self-imposed inadequacy in government services; bigger or smaller. Easy arguments could be made for either, if from nothing else than the often irritating decorum and zeal of each end's proponents.

I would like to explore a different path, focusing on a hypothetical decentralizing of the federal government. This would be one in which the US Fed, and the power that it has been amassing since the nation's conception, would be be returned to the states, resulting (sooner or later) in a more localized government system.

There are lots of arguments for increasing federal to global authority structures, and they often strike me a boring and unresponsive (The nation plows through 34 Trillion of debt and it's still not big enough). It is as if all debate on state-to-individual relations is settled and the rest in follow through and the pesky details of managing the great congealing. On the other end, I don't know that minimalists realize how dependent many are on the current (and soon-to-be) expanding state, and often seem to dramatically underestimate the hazards of a downsizing.

At any rate, if you want to get into a thinking exercise about going smaller with government I am happy to oblige.

Of course we have a large government!

The United States is the 3rd largest country - by population - on the planet: 339,000,000. We are, and have been, the most powerful nation militarily. We are the 4th largest country by area. We have the largest GDP on the planet.

A complex society in a complex world requires a complex government capable of meeting very large and unexpected threats to our stability and security. Sure, once we had a small government -- back when we were much smaller, much weaker militarily, and much poorer. We were once a largely undeveloped country. By WWI that wasn't really true anymore.

Distribution of resources WITHIN the governmental agencies could be organized along different lines. Less money should be allocated for defense. We need a defense -- no doubt about that -- but I assume it could be considerably more efficient and effective. It won't get more efficient and effective if they keep getting a blank check (so to speak) every biennium.

Numerous programs (created by Congress) transfer wealth from the large working classes to the tiny wealthy classes. Tax laws are a good example. These are unfair to start with, and moreover reduce the productivity of the economy.

A lot of people think that the government, especially the President, is in charge of the economy. When the economy is poor, they blame the government. When it is good, they praise themselves. The economy is everybody, and while banks, government controls, and so on can speed up or slow down the economy, nobody is "in charge" of it.

It is, I think, quite normal to blame the government. It is usually distant; it is not, and probably can't be, entirely or too transparent (at least given the society we have now). Because the government is powerful, people fear it a little (or a lot, depending on their activities). A lot of what the government does, and does well, does not touch everyone, so many people think the government does nothing.

The right sized government is relevant to the right sized parenthood.

The chain that supports you from an endless, ever tormenting plummet is in fact only strongest as its weakest link. Which in this case is the most unruly child given equal rights as the most ardent scholar enjoys.

One who values life, rather the civil order that ensures such life is reasonably expected to continue the following day, would do well to acknowledge such realities.

I would like to explore a different path, focusing on a hypothetical decentralizing of the federal government. This would be one in which the US Fed, and the power that it has been amassing since the nation's conception, would be be returned to the states, resulting (sooner or later) in a more localized government system. — Elysium House

The problem I see with that is how differently states have been doing so in various government responsibilities. Some have been less democratic and less concerned with citizen's rights than others. Should they really have more power? How do you organize revenue collection and the funding of services? How do you finance the many, many wars? Can you even keep the union going? (States rights have nearly wrecked it once, and there is a very strong movement to change the constitution.... and of course T***p wants to tear it up and declare himself Chancellor or something.)

At any rate, if you want to get into a thinking exercise about going smaller with government I am happy to oblige. — Elysium House

I'm not sure I know enough, but there are several issues I'm interested in.
Like: Does the nation still work? Should it be a federation at all?

A complex society in a complex world requires a complex government capable of meeting very large and unexpected threats to our stability and security — BC

I agree. I'd been wondering about all the perennial conservative campaigns calling for a reduction in the size of government, without specifying where why or how. If they do get into power, the end up appointing political supporters instead of experts to head departments, cutting social services, privatizing schools and prisons and expanding the spook and military agencies. No savings, no return to the taxpayer. The liberal ones are accused of bloating government, because they tend to add (or repair) social services, but they're afraid to cut or reduce the 'security' departments, the military or the foreign meddling. It looks like a no-win for liberalism.

Distribution of resources WITHIN the governmental agencies could be organized along different lines. Less money should be allocated for defense. — BC

Absolutely. An awful lot of it seem to be offensive. Not to mention wasteful.

Tax laws are a good example. These are unfair to start with, and moreover reduce the productivity of the economy. — BC

Allowing both money and industry to be removed from the country, while the working people and the government both lack the mobility of corporations and making people pay extra for services their taxes are already paying for.

The economy is everybody, and while banks, government controls, and so on can speed up or slow down the economy, nobody is "in charge" of it. — BC

Maybe not, but some sectors have more control over it than others. Especially when trade unions are legally kneecapped while the boss class is given greater license.

A lot of what the government does, and does well, does not touch everyone, so many people think the government does nothing. — BC

It does touch them, but they don't seem really aware of how much and how necessarily. The anti-'Obama-care' protest sign comes to mind.
I very much doubt that Americans (or Canadians, for that matter) really know much about their government and what it does, or how.

I very much doubt that Americans (or Canadians, for that matter) really know much about their government and what it does, or how. — Vera Mont

That is, indeed, a problem. many people would be even more enraged if they knew more about the government. The rage would be distributed along familiar lines.

Backing up a bit. You are right about some sectors having more control over the economy than others. Big corporations on down to penny ante shops account for a great deal of the economy. Businesses tend to be anti-union, unless they have been forced to accept organized workers and found they can live with them. The deck is heavily stacked against workers and unions. Congress and legislatures have passed laws hindering (or preventing) workers from organizing.

But that's the economy we have, now. I don't like it; I'd like to see it changed into democratic socialism; I've worked toward that end, without seeing a shred of progress, over the years.

There is a lot of controversy over big government.
What does that mean? — Vera Mont

There is a lot of confusion about government. Take water for an example. A chap needs clean fresh water on tap, and sewage and waste water drainage and treatment. A chap needs not to have his neighbours' sewage flooding his home or his yard. or his clean water supply. So because water flows and moves from here to there, all this needs to be organised by someone and as long as it is done, one is willing reluctantly to pay for it. Whoever organises it, provides it, and takes a chap's money for it governs the chap. So when water and sewage is 'privatised' there is not less government, just less democracy. This ok to the extent that we all agree about what we need and don't have to care about the fine details. Except when the owner doesn't do the job properly, and then one needs to govern the governor.

How would you determine the right size? By population? By complexity? By economy? — Vera Mont

Difficult question, but I have a thought that could narrow it down. It requires a bit of background.

First off, one thing that no one wrote out but that I assume many of you know is this: Government workers are more inefficient not only due to complexity but also due to less pressure in the workplace. Governmental positions are "comfy". This is because that their efficiency isn't directly tied to their continued "survival" as it is in a more profit driven workplace.

However, many of the decisions that governmental employees handle have ramifications that show results far in the future, while normal companies will expect their profit to come within a decade. Therefore, you can't force governmental positions to follow concrete financial results like you do in the private sector.

Here is how I would "determine the right size": Any work that will have its full ramifications shown within a decade can be entirely profit driven. Work that has longer spanning ramifications should have more and more governmental oversight. If you are planning for future generations you may as well let governments handle the entire thing.

Sidenote. I do think there are more sectors where governments should step in. Work that requires a lot of cooperation on a large scale and work that is morally difficult to handle. There are probably more examples.