by exploited » Mon Feb 11, 2013 12:34 pm
There are certain issues that require "big government," whatever that means. For instance, environmental protection is fundamentally a national issue, and should therefore be a federal responsibility. The same can be said for consumer protection, certain health issues (disease control being a big one), and, of course, financial regulation. Health care, in my opinion, should be the responsibility of the states/provinces, with the federal government playing the role of watchdog, only acting to curb the most troublesome issues.
It is no surprise that younger people favour these things, or that they want them to be dealt with on a federal level. Yet I believe that most people, when they actually think about it, would prefer many decisions to be brought back to a local level. I personally favour reform to drastically decentralize the government, and I believe that the power of the federal government needs to be reigned back significantly. It's ability to spend needs to be more carefully regulated, and it's role needs to be more clearly defined. In the end, I favour government intervention in many spheres of human life, but I think trying to do a one-size-fits-all approach, using the federal government, is a terrible idea. It seems silly to assume that what works in Ontario will work in British Columbia, and what works in Wisconsin will work in Miami.
Lastly, I think it is pretty dismissive and inaccurate to assume that, because people favour these things, they are reliant upon their parents, or unable to provide for themselves. It just sounds like a rehashed 47% argument, which is the one thing that Indy has said in this thread that I view as relevant. Truth be told, lots of people rely upon their parents, and their political ideology has very little to do with it.