[Moneyguy1]

Both sides of the argument seek services from their government that, in the long run are unsustainable. One extreme wants the government to act as "the great provider", while the other extreme wants the government to, through inaction, permit unfettered private enterprise without controls. Both can take down a system over time. Somewhere there must be a balance and society has to recognize this fact and accept some kind of middle ground. There are certain things that government is better at such as defense, firefighting, crimefighting, and even some social types of programs. Only because in many of these instances the individual could not afford to provide these services to themselves and so they "band together" through government to provide these services. Government, for these services, should act as a "collective", or mutual aid (like many insurance companies) but be regulated in the sense that ancellary services are controlled and expansion limited. Therefore, oversight is required. If that oversight is left to government, it is similar to the fox guarding the henhouse. The people must supply that oversight in order to maintain a sustainable form of government at all levels.