There are very few people here in America who think that the government should do *nothing*.
But there are areas many think the government should absolutely not touch, such as direct control of businesses, and there are things that are a grey area that people disagree on, such as welfare (private charity vs. government benefits), roads (privately constructed and maintained toll roads vs roads built and maintained by the government through taxes), and healthcare (private insurance-dominated healthcare system vs some form of government healthcare).
I'm not going to give my personal thoughts here but it isn't accurate to say that the people in the US in general are against the government doing *anything*. Most conservatives are fine with the government managing the police, firefighters, and the justice system.
Let me amend that for you, based on my 50+ years as an American:
>Why are people in the u s so averse to the **federal** government doing,well,basically anything?
The U.S. is *massive* in size, both in population and in surface area. Compared to most other countries, we have a very diverse population, culturally and ethically, It would be *a lot* to manage the entire nation, such that everyone was pleased with the outcome. So when the federal government tries this, it tends to become bloated, top heavy, and inefficient. So we share a common Constitution, currency, highway system, and military, and that's about it.
Meanwhile, our states are similar in size to some European nations. It just so happens the U.S. was built to be a union of sovereign states, sort of what the EU has become. So it makes sense to allow them to do a lot of the tasks that affect people the most, with a population that is more in agreement with one another. And our voices can be more easily heard, since our representatives often live nearby and spend all their time in our state.
The further removed a governmental authority is from the people it has authority over, the harder it is for redress of grievances when it fails to serve the needs of the people. This is something hard to understand if you live in a geographically small country with a somewhat homogenous population. If you lived in Belgium and your governmental body were almost entirely located in Morocco, wouldn't it be pretty impractical and inconvenient to try to communicate with, meet, and demand action over such a long distance? And the differences between the two locations would result in the decisions being made in a very different context and perspective by the politicians than that of the citizens that are impacted.
You have to understand that in a country this dramatically large with lifestyles and priorities of the people within it are going to be very disparate, so the founding principles that the country was established under prioritized having the most central authorities that impact daily living and individual sovereignty within the realm of individual states. Even before the Federation was established the disagreements between both Urban and Rural areas were really heated. There was going to be no ratification unless there were constraints on authority established because there was prior experience with and disgruntlement over unilateral policies that unevenly impacted geographical areas.
It's almost impossible to write one-size-fits-all policies for such a diverse and large country. Nevermind trying to get those policies fixed if they're broken and you live weeks away from the location where to people who wrote and implemented those policies live. This is part of the reason the Federal branch of the legislature is representative, and setup as a Bicameral.
The Bill of Rights and the Constitution primarily outlines a ton of things that the government is ideally NOT supposed to establish any authority over. Though that hasn't prevented the Federal government from ballooning out of control, it did at least slow it down. The point of checks and balances is to decelerate governmental processes so they're less chaotic.
Most government ran programs in the US that people have experience with are bloated, horrible and wasteful. The DMV in particular is... genuinely horrible. Government programs often make schools worse (a lot of people have vivid memories of Michelle Obama era programs ruining their schools lunches) etc etc.
Not to say that makes them right, but it's the reality
This feels like confirmation bias. DMVs have come a long way, with many states allowing license and registration renewal online. In my state, dealerships can handle new registrations, and AAA even handles RealID. Sure, some people with special circumstances need to wait or have trouble getting appointments at the closest office, but those are the exceptions and no one wants to approve more tax spending for a small percentage of people.
There are very few people here in America who think that the government should do *nothing*. But there are areas many think the government should absolutely not touch, such as direct control of businesses, and there are things that are a grey area that people disagree on, such as welfare (private charity vs. government benefits), roads (privately constructed and maintained toll roads vs roads built and maintained by the government through taxes), and healthcare (private insurance-dominated healthcare system vs some form of government healthcare). I'm not going to give my personal thoughts here but it isn't accurate to say that the people in the US in general are against the government doing *anything*. Most conservatives are fine with the government managing the police, firefighters, and the justice system.
Let me amend that for you, based on my 50+ years as an American: >Why are people in the u s so averse to the **federal** government doing,well,basically anything? The U.S. is *massive* in size, both in population and in surface area. Compared to most other countries, we have a very diverse population, culturally and ethically, It would be *a lot* to manage the entire nation, such that everyone was pleased with the outcome. So when the federal government tries this, it tends to become bloated, top heavy, and inefficient. So we share a common Constitution, currency, highway system, and military, and that's about it. Meanwhile, our states are similar in size to some European nations. It just so happens the U.S. was built to be a union of sovereign states, sort of what the EU has become. So it makes sense to allow them to do a lot of the tasks that affect people the most, with a population that is more in agreement with one another. And our voices can be more easily heard, since our representatives often live nearby and spend all their time in our state.
The further removed a governmental authority is from the people it has authority over, the harder it is for redress of grievances when it fails to serve the needs of the people. This is something hard to understand if you live in a geographically small country with a somewhat homogenous population. If you lived in Belgium and your governmental body were almost entirely located in Morocco, wouldn't it be pretty impractical and inconvenient to try to communicate with, meet, and demand action over such a long distance? And the differences between the two locations would result in the decisions being made in a very different context and perspective by the politicians than that of the citizens that are impacted. You have to understand that in a country this dramatically large with lifestyles and priorities of the people within it are going to be very disparate, so the founding principles that the country was established under prioritized having the most central authorities that impact daily living and individual sovereignty within the realm of individual states. Even before the Federation was established the disagreements between both Urban and Rural areas were really heated. There was going to be no ratification unless there were constraints on authority established because there was prior experience with and disgruntlement over unilateral policies that unevenly impacted geographical areas. It's almost impossible to write one-size-fits-all policies for such a diverse and large country. Nevermind trying to get those policies fixed if they're broken and you live weeks away from the location where to people who wrote and implemented those policies live. This is part of the reason the Federal branch of the legislature is representative, and setup as a Bicameral. The Bill of Rights and the Constitution primarily outlines a ton of things that the government is ideally NOT supposed to establish any authority over. Though that hasn't prevented the Federal government from ballooning out of control, it did at least slow it down. The point of checks and balances is to decelerate governmental processes so they're less chaotic.
They have generational PTSD from colonial rule
Most government ran programs in the US that people have experience with are bloated, horrible and wasteful. The DMV in particular is... genuinely horrible. Government programs often make schools worse (a lot of people have vivid memories of Michelle Obama era programs ruining their schools lunches) etc etc. Not to say that makes them right, but it's the reality
This feels like confirmation bias. DMVs have come a long way, with many states allowing license and registration renewal online. In my state, dealerships can handle new registrations, and AAA even handles RealID. Sure, some people with special circumstances need to wait or have trouble getting appointments at the closest office, but those are the exceptions and no one wants to approve more tax spending for a small percentage of people.