I feel that the US has an under-performing private healthcare system and public education system.  There are no simple answers, but at least we can look at these and say, it's not like public vs private makes all the difference.  It's not like one way solves the problems of these essentials, and the other doesn't... in this case, they both don't work.

But the point is, they are essential.  As a society of people, we have different beliefs, and even different values.  Through experience, we learn that we have some core essentials in common.  One way or another, we as a people have a duty to ensure these essentials are available to all people.  That's a belief that I have, I think it's in all our interests to ensure all people have basic human rights.

If the government has any role, it's to represent our interest in terms of protecting these basic human rights.  The extent to which a government can do this effectively depends entirely on the day to day activities of these elected representatives.  We have to understand, regardless of our differences, real working solutions are what matters.  We have to put aside our differences, and our ideologies, and just focus on what actually provides results. Oranization that are not about forcing one ideology, and do not depend on everyone agreeing about everything all the time.  Maybe some solutions are public, maybe some are private, maybe some are a combination.  We need to break from the false choices, and binaries in these conversations.

Our values and ideologies are important, and drive our positions on issues.  We can come from these different points of view, and still sit at the same table.  We need to put in place the type of organizations and systems that respect the plurality of voices.   To that extent, the push for a smaller federal government, and more state and local representation makes a lot of sense to me.  What's good for Cali may not be good for Ohio, they can have some specific needs, and even different cultures, and we can be ok with that.  Bascially, the less we need to agree on at a Federal level, the better. 

People get scared when they hear a call for smaller federal government.  They think, oh you want to destroy public institutions, or take away the rights of some group.  There's a conversation that needs to happen on each issue.  Also, just because I favor removing Federal responsibility for some law or some service doesn't mean that law or service would just disappear.  I'm saying, be very careful what you ask a central, Federal organization to do for you.  When you hand over the responsibility, it may seem like a great idea, but you may have also lost a lot of control. 

I think temptation we have is we want equality, one law for everyone, one system for everyone.  This is great in theory, but I think in practice there has to be a balance.  Local leadership has to be allowed to have a strong enough voice to ensure this balance is kept.  A community should be empowered to be more directly involved in the types of services it supports.  It should also be in a position to advocate laws based on the values of it's local population. 

We have to be very careful with too much top down thinking or laws or services, and use these only when we have a true consensus, and for the most core essential human rights issues.  Even then, we must be vigilant to ensure the results match up with what is promised.  We must be always engaged in the effort, even though we fail sometimes, 99% of people want justice for all people of the earth.  If you actually sit down with them, reason with them, you will find they listen to you when you talk about justice and human rights.  If they don't then they are basically a Nazi, and they have no place at the table.  Just remember that, because we all have that in common regardless of politics.

part 2

I said education and healthcare are essential.  This means that I believe that essential services in this regard, like emergency services, like early childhood education, should be available to all people, regardless of their economic class, religion, creed, etc.  If they are unable to afford these services, then yes, local, state, and perhaps federal government must guarantee that programs and services exist that meet this requirement.

In addition to this, those who are homeless have a right to shelter, and food.  The local, state, and perhaps federal government has a responsibility to guarantee programs and services available to these people without prejudice. 

Note that the programs and services could actually be provisioned by public, non profit / ngo, or private organizations.  I believe that the government needs to guarantee basic human rights, but that results are what should drive solutions.  Measurable, real results, and creative problem solving, by coming together with a genuine desire to provide justice and basic human rights for all.  If we ensure transparency in government, and also ensure it has a clear and focused mission, we can measure the results of it's effectivness.

Also, we should be sure to define the scope of the programs and services, and always err in favour of maintaining personal freedoms, and local preferences, so long as they do not impact the real, and measurable results that we must define.  We must define what role the government has, especially the large central federal system, and how it measures results effectively.

It is up to each of us, regular people, to advocate causes, get involved and provide the real solutions.  We must be the watchdog, we must measure the results, and we must correct the failures.  Transparency is critical, so we must remove the curtain to see who's money is buying policy, and forcing us into false choices and division.  I do firmly believe government has a role in such services as these, but I'm wary of handing off too much responsibility, especially to a large, centralized system of government. 

I believe that smaller local organizations provide critical checks and balances.  When empowered relative to central authority, government becomes more representative of the people.  This is because it's much harder to form a collusion of power over a larger field of power relationships.  You are forced to sit down, talk, reach consensus.  I think this is critical, and has been missing from recent politics.  Terrible consequences like endless war, and systemic economic injustice result.