Cons/repubs: how much power do you think the federal government should have?

[Billy000]

To me, it would be outrageous to abolish administrations such as the EPA, FDA, or TSA. They are vital for the well being of the American people. That is why i can't take a lot of libertarians seriously when they favor getting rid of them.

 

[Oddball]

Why I can't take statist progs seriously is that they can't name the bureaucracy that they don't believe to be "vital for the well being of the American people", no matter how inept, incompetent, despotic and/or outright corrupt that they are.

 

[kaz]

To me, it would be outrageous to abolish administrations such as the EPA, FDA, or TSA. They are vital for the well being of the American people. That is why i can't take a lot of libertarians seriously when they favor getting rid of them.

You have to look at what they actually do, not the marketing of what they do to understand it. If government were kind, benevolent and effective as liberals assume it to be, then sure, I'd be a liberal and support that. I'm a libertarian because I recognize that it isn't, and inherently so. I'm a libertarian because of the reality of government.

Even then, the TSA? Seriously? As a management consultant who traveled most of my career until I started running my own businesses, I felt so much safer after I was asked for my ID for the third time in the same line. Not.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

To me, it would be outrageous to abolish administrations such as the EPA, FDA, or TSA. They are vital for the well being of the American people. That is why i can't take a lot of libertarians seriously when they favor getting rid of them.

Why? It's not like they do anything that couldn't be handled better and cheaper by private enterprise.

 

[snowdenisahero]

To me, it would be outrageous to abolish administrations such as the EPA, FDA, or TSA. They are vital for the well being of the American people. That is why i can't take a lot of libertarians seriously when they favor getting rid of them.

TSA should not exist and can be and should be handles by the airports.
FDA creates pharmaceutical monopolies and should not be able to mandate what we buy and sell.
EPA: Why do they carry weapons? Good info on the EPA: We Don't Need EPA Regulations | Care2 Healthy Living

The constitution is all we need. It is the only thing that keeps the Government small and beholden to the people. We need to get rid of the FED/IRS and anything that's unconstitutional.

 

[Billy000]

To me, it would be outrageous to abolish administrations such as the EPA, FDA, or TSA. They are vital for the well being of the American people. That is why i can't take a lot of libertarians seriously when they favor getting rid of them.

You have to look at what they actually do, not the marketing of what they do to understand it. If government were kind, benevolent and effective as liberals assume it to be, then sure, I'd be a liberal and support that. I'm a libertarian because I recognize that it isn't, and inherently so. I'm a libertarian because of the reality of government.

Even then, the TSA? Seriously? As a management consultant who traveled most of my career until I started running my own businesses, I felt so much safer after I was asked for my ID for the third time in the same line. Not.

You don't believe that these administrations are inherently good? I agree there may be a level of corruption, but to say that these administrations are inherently oppressive is complete non sense.

I think its safe to say the TSA has successfully discouraged many terrorists plots in the wake of 9/11. To deny that is ridiculous.

 

[Oddball]

To me, it would be outrageous to abolish administrations such as the EPA, FDA, or TSA. They are vital for the well being of the American people. That is why i can't take a lot of libertarians seriously when they favor getting rid of them.

You have to look at what they actually do, not the marketing of what they do to understand it. If government were kind, benevolent and effective as liberals assume it to be, then sure, I'd be a liberal and support that. I'm a libertarian because I recognize that it isn't, and inherently so. I'm a libertarian because of the reality of government.

Even then, the TSA? Seriously? As a management consultant who traveled most of my career until I started running my own businesses, I felt so much safer after I was asked for my ID for the third time in the same line. Not.

You don't believe that these administrations are inherently good? I agree there may be a level of corruption, but to say that these administrations are inherently oppressive is complete non sense.

The initiation of force is never inherently good and always inherently oppressive.

I think its safe to say the TSA has successfully discouraged many terrorists plots in the wake of 9/11. To deny that is ridiculous.

What you believe to be "safe to say" is irrelevant.

 

[Yurt]

how about what the founders wanted...a LIMITED government

 

[R.C. Christian]

As little as possible. A nuclear strike on D.C. would be a blessing.

 

[Billy000]

You have to look at what they actually do, not the marketing of what they do to understand it. If government were kind, benevolent and effective as liberals assume it to be, then sure, I'd be a liberal and support that. I'm a libertarian because I recognize that it isn't, and inherently so. I'm a libertarian because of the reality of government.

Even then, the TSA? Seriously? As a management consultant who traveled most of my career until I started running my own businesses, I felt so much safer after I was asked for my ID for the third time in the same line. Not.

You don't believe that these administrations are inherently good? I agree there may be a level of corruption, but to say that these administrations are inherently oppressive is complete non sense.

The initiation of force is never inherently good and always inherently oppressive.

I think its safe to say the TSA has successfully discouraged many terrorists plots in the wake of 9/11. To deny that is ridiculous.

What you believe to be "safe to say" is irrelevant.

Some things are just common sense. Had we not revamped airport security after 9/11, what would have stopped terrorists from trying again knowing security remained so lax? Think about it. The shoe bomber. The underwear bomber. They had to get creative to carry out their mission.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It took 5 years for the FDA to approve a ham product imported from Tuscany

5 Fucking years

"Real Tuscan Prosciutto Is Now Available - Finally - In U.S."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larryol...n-prosciutto-is-now-available-finally-in-u-s/

 

[Oddball]

You don't believe that these administrations are inherently good? I agree there may be a level of corruption, but to say that these administrations are inherently oppressive is complete non sense.

The initiation of force is never inherently good and always inherently oppressive.

I think its safe to say the TSA has successfully discouraged many terrorists plots in the wake of 9/11. To deny that is ridiculous.

What you believe to be "safe to say" is irrelevant.

Some things are just common sense. Had we not revamped airport security after 9/11, what would have stopped terrorists from trying again knowing security remained so lax? Think about it. The shoe bomber. The underwear bomber. They had to get creative to carry out their mission.

Your completely subjective notion of what constitutes "common sense" is irrelevant....Security could be carried out by the individual airports and the airlines, to the same or better levels of the TSA, and more than likely at a far lower costs.

Oh, and the shoe bomber and knickerbomber got their devices onto the aircraft...Is that supposed to be evidence of the effectiveness of the TSA?

 

[Vox]

close to zero

 

[blackhawk]

You would have to look at every Government agency and judge it on it's own merits that said can anyone right, left, or center honestly say there are not Government agencies that should not be cut, combined, or done away with all together?

 

[Billy000]

The initiation of force is never inherently good and always inherently oppressive.


What you believe to be "safe to say" is irrelevant.

Some things are just common sense. Had we not revamped airport security after 9/11, what would have stopped terrorists from trying again knowing security remained so lax? Think about it. The shoe bomber. The underwear bomber. They had to get creative to carry out their mission.

Your completely subjective notion of what constitutes "common sense" is irrelevant....Security could be carried out by the individual airports and the airlines, to the same or better levels of the TSA, and more than likely at a far lower costs.

Oh, and the shoe bomber and knickerbomber got their devices onto the aircraft...Is that supposed to be evidence of the effectiveness of the TSA?

Why exactly makes your assertion about individual airport security more objective than my assertion about the TSA? You claim the TSA would be less effective, but what is that based upon besides your own assumption?

And no, those bombers boarding the plane is an indication that the TSA is not perfect. It is an indication that the TSA must evolve with growing creativity.

 

[Vox]

TSA is so bad because it is required to be PC. If it would actually perform it's job as Israeli one does, we would have much less nonsense and much less personnel and the results would be much better.

 

[National Socialist]

None. I believe in small ethnic/tribal communities at the very most. There would be no national government.

 

[deltex1]

To me, it would be outrageous to abolish administrations such as the EPA, FDA, or TSA. They are vital for the well being of the American people. That is why i can't take a lot of libertarians seriously when they favor getting rid of them.

Enough to blow every other nation all to hell. Enough to help the truly needy and be able to know who exactly they are. Enough to manage our borders and immigration. Enough to efficiently manage quality education, infrastructure and research. Enough to monitor and regulate a free capitalist system with minimal interference.

 

[Redfish]

To me, it would be outrageous to abolish administrations such as the EPA, FDA, or TSA. They are vital for the well being of the American people. That is why i can't take a lot of libertarians seriously when they favor getting rid of them.

exactly what the constitution gives it. nothing more.

the EPA, FDA, and TSA are recent govt expansions. We need laws on pollution, drugs, food but we don't need thousands of civil servants to continually write new ones. the judicial system is there to enforce laws. EPA and FDA add nothing but expense.

The airlines and airports should be responsible for security, or if you don't like that idea, turn it over to the USCG. We need fewer govt beaurocracies not more.

 

[Redfish]

To me, it would be outrageous to abolish administrations such as the EPA, FDA, or TSA. They are vital for the well being of the American people. That is why i can't take a lot of libertarians seriously when they favor getting rid of them.

Enough to blow every other nation all to hell. Enough to help the truly needy and be able to know who exactly they are. Enough to manage our borders and immigration. Enough to efficiently manage quality education, infrastructure and research. Enough to monitor and regulate a free capitalist system with minimal interference.

the ones in red are not federal responsibilty, they belong to states and local govt and private industry.