You and I begin with different perceptions of government. You imply human intent (Big Brother) to what I see as a corrupted, inefficient decision-making system that is in need of replacement.
Moreover, you see value in laws like the Constitution and I don't. My attitude is that if the policy will be effective in improving the lives of its citizenry but it's unconstitutional, don't be stupid, amend the law.
I don't know what you mean when you talk about BIG government. Are you referring to its power? If so, that's a simple question for me. If the government is corrupt, ineffective or both it should have no power. It should be abandoned. If the government is clean and effective. Then it should have whatever power it needs to implement its decisions.
A society is a cooperative endeavor. The idea that its citizens should be made to compete in order to survive would be dumb if we knew how to manage an economy efficiently. Thus, for now the mixed economies are the best we can do. Worldwide, socialized healthcare has been proven to be more efficient, a better bargain, than the free market version.
The Constitution is a set of laws and guidelines that help to make the government optimized and fair. Corruption in big government is usually a function of attempted changes in the Constitution, but that are not formally changed via the Constitution itself.
For example, Congress according to the Constitution is the branch of government that makes laws. The Democrats, to force environmental goals on everyone, handed off the Congressional power to make laws to unelected bureaucrats in the EPA. This bypassed the Constitution.
The EPA, who is not Congress and therefore not part of the Constitution, by an Amendment, expanded these law to ridiculous standards, that defied common sense practices. Much of the justification for expanding the EPA, was bureaucratic, since more rules and more laws means more EPA team members, more budget for the EPA and more power. This bureaucratic conflict in interest is where inefficiency begins. If Congress had to formally approve each law, to make a clean environment, there would be debate, the laws more thought out, and the end product more efficient, than one department growing itself annually.
Consider innovations like computers and internet. This is an example of the free market. These products in the free market have seen their price go down, quality go up over the past 25 years. A $1000 computer in 2000 is now equal to a cheap cell phone today, for under $100. This could never happen in government. There are no examples, I can think of, since government never turns a profit. It is always deficit and diminishing returns that requires constant infusion of taxes, including borrowing from the future. This is not a sustainable health care approach. We need quality to increase and price to fall, like TV's and computers.
Consider the definition of poverty. The average poor person in America, today, has free market things, that only the rich had 50 years ago, such as cars, TV, computers and cells phones. This is due to free market not government. Government spent $trillion and poverty levels did not change. The reason is the poverty bureaucrats want their departments to grow, not get smaller. A Free market provider would shrink if this was more competitive and cost effective.
The main reason the government sucks, in my opinion, is due to an election process that is media driven. This system appears to be optimized for people, who have actor skills, who can pretend to be statesmen, like an actor can pretend to be a TV doctor or lawyer. These acting and confidence skills are special skills, made for TV and media. However, special as they are, this does not always translate, to the practical skills needed to do the real job.
As an analogy, a TV doctor can convince many TV viewers that they have doctor skills, while also able to the bedside manner of the perfect ideal doctor. If you decided this the perfecter person to do a heart by-pass on you, you would quickly realize they are just a shell of a doctor.
This is the main reason the establishment hates Trump. Trump is a rough surface personality, less than them, but he has practical skills. He gets things done fast, threatening to betray how many shells and TV doctors are in high leadership positions
Moving the capital of Israel to Jerusalem had been talked about for decades and Trump does it in months. The reason for the delay is, no TV doctor, whats to be anywhere near a real operating room, less their image be tarnished with a reality check. Trump can operate and likes showing off his skills,
The Democrat Congress has devoted the last 3 years trying to take out Trump with drama and intrigue. This is what actors do best. They can effectively play to an audience, that thinks TV doctors are real, and what happened on TV is real life; collusion delusion.
This topic is about the psychological differences between the Conservative and Progressives. Progressive tend to be more on the surface, so the TV doctors, appeal to them. Practical skill is secondary. Trump is not the best TV doctor, since he can be harsh and rude, which bothers the left. However, he has operating skills, which attracts the Right, since they sense the country needs operations and medical care and not just just a bunch of TV drama.
