"Smaller government" advocates

[TemplarKormac]

I didn't say I was necessarily in favor of bigger government. I said I don't get many people who say they're in favor of smaller govt but clearly aren't.

Because all of us have a varying idea of what size the government should be. The ideas are as numerous as there are grains of sand on a beach.

My view on government would be that a government should make life better for people by doing certain things that are needed that wouldn't happen under pure capitalism.

I disagree. It is up to the individual to better himself. Government shouldn't play the role of keeping people from failing. Failure is the first step to success. What happens if it isn't there to insure that success? Your premise seems to rely on the idea that the government is only here to protect someone from possibility of failure. Call me old school, but government is no substitute for effort. Failure is a more valuable teacher than success.

Besides, our economy isn't based on "pure capitalism" it is simply a perfect balance between socialism and capitalism.

To regulate Capitalism so that it doesn't go crazy

Why? What do you mean by "so it doesn't go crazy?"

 

[TemplarKormac]

Oh, we want a bigger military, I know, let's make enemies with the second largest religion in the world, then we can protect and defend ourselves against them. That'll be fun, won't it? We'll have a massive defense budget then.

Sure, so lets just play the part of Alderaan in Star Wars. No need for an army then.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I don't get people who say they want smaller government.

Mainly because I don't believe they want smaller government.

Most of the people who advocate smaller government are the sort of people who support the US having a massive armed forces. They're the sort of people who want the government to ban same sex marriage. They're the sort of people who want the govt to ban drugs like Marijuana, perhaps even alcohol.

In other words, they're people who want the government in YOUR face, just not in their face. They're happy for big government, just so long as it doesn't step on their patch. They're not gay, they're not into recreational drugs, they're not getting invaded by the US armed forces, so they just don't care and they're happy for big government in those areas.

Also, I've been discussing government subsidies. Yes, we all know about welfare (for your information, before you jump on my back about it, I'm in favor of welfare based on how long you have worked, and before you've worked for 5 years you should get no welfare at all unless you're in education and doing well in your education at that, and then the longer you've worked, the more you can get, like after 10 years an increase in payments, if you need them) and the left giving money to people who really shouldn't be getting it, but this isn't what's been spoken about here, so lay off this topic.
Government subsidies to farmer and big corporations. Seem the right is all in favor of handing out money to rich people. Seems strange to talk about smaller govt one minute, then advocate govt giving out loads of money to businesses the next minute.

Does anyone actually, really, truly, support smaller government?

330 million Americans and people want smaller or less government? We gonna get rid of citizens at the same time?

" Democracy and Optimum Population Size: 2500 years ago, Aristotle considered the best size for a city and concluded that a large increase in population would bring, "certain poverty on the citizenry, and poverty is the cause of sedition and evil." He considered that a city of over 100,000 people would exclude most citizens from a voice in government.

To get an idea of what the founders of the United States had in mind for our representative Democracy, at the low end, the Constitution says (Article 1, Section 2) that a Representative to the House should represent a minimum of 30,000 people. When the Constitution was written, the United States had a total population of around 2.5 million, and the Constitution allocated 65 Representatives to the 13 states. So each Representative of "the People's House" had about 38,500 constituents. Currently each Representative has 712,650 constituents. It's really a form of irony today to call it "the People's House" when only wealthy donors and paid lobbyists really have the ear of your "representatives." What we have now is not Democracy in the sense intended by the country's founders. "
Effects of Overpopulation on the Environment and Society | HowMany.org

How big a government does the US need? The reality is it could probably be smaller.

However I deem smaller govt as a government which is less invasive into the lives of people. It does what it is there for, and doesn't go around telling people what to do.

The problem that education isn't to a level where the people, as a general mass, are able to think well enough for themselves. So the government has failed, then feels the need to tell people what to do, so it's easy, because the people just take it.

Any time people are saying the govt shouldn't tell them what to do, it's generally their own party telling them the other party is wrong for telling them what to do.

"You're all individuals"
"Yes, we're all individuals"
"I'm not"

 

[Delta4Embassy]

454,301:1 'congress people' in (2,987 seats) China.

733,103:1 for USA (435 members of Congress.)

As posted above, ideal representative number is 38,500:1

We need bigger, not small government if only in the sense of lots more reps.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I didn't say I was necessarily in favor of bigger government.

And let's come back to this statement. So, you say you aren't "necessarily in favor of bigger government." But some of the items on your list quoted below suggests otherwise. Please, correct me if I'm wrong.

The police.
The fire service
Healthcare
Infrastructure
Welfare (and not this isn't me saying we should just hand out cash, I believe people should have worked in order to be able to get welfare, perhaps five years before they can get any welfare at all)
Armed forces
Prisons
Helping trade (this doesn't include invading countries in order to have your companies take over, nor does it include using the World Bank to fuck over countries)
To regulate Capitalism so that it doesn't go crazy
To make laws based around a system of Human Rights, ie, you can do what you like as long as it doesn't harm other people
To provide education fit for the needs of the citizens
To do other things based around making society more cohesive and more a place where people can have opportunities and chances to do things.

1. The police have nothing to do with capitalism.
2. Neither does the "fire service."
3. Healthcare should be up to the individual, not a government.
4. Infrastructure, yes.
5. Seems fair enough.
6. And what do our armed forces have to do with "pure capitalism"?
7. Sure, why not?
8. What? Do you mean the Trans Pacific Deal? Yeah, that's a bit excessive. Gives too much leeway for corporations to control the trade themselves.
9. Why regulate capitalism? Capitalism, when done the right way, creates an atmosphere where everyone has an opportunity. Just because someone doesn't succeed in a capitalistic society doesn't mean we should regulate it.
10. That isn't "Human rights" that's simply making sure nobody is exposed to adversity.
11. That's all well and good, but when government controls education, you learn what they want you to learn, not what you want to learn.
12. Isn't that what we already have now?

 

[frigidweirdo]

I didn't say I was necessarily in favor of bigger government. I said I don't get many people who say they're in favor of smaller govt but clearly aren't.

Because all of us have a varying idea of what size the government should be. The ideas are as numerous as there are grains of sand on a beach.

My view on government would be that a government should make life better for people by doing certain things that are needed that wouldn't happen under pure capitalism.

I disagree. It is up to the individual to better himself. Government shouldn't play the role of keeping people from failing. Failure is the first step to success. What happens if it isn't there to insure that success? Your premise seems to rely on the idea that the government is only here to protect someone from possibility of failure. Call me old school, but government is no substitute for effort. Failure is a more valuable teacher than success.

Besides, our economy isn't based on "pure capitalism" it is simply a perfect balance between socialism and capitalism.

To regulate Capitalism so that it doesn't go crazy

Why? What do you mean by "so it doesn't go crazy?"

You say it's up to the individual to better themselves. But it doesn't work. Sorry. It's been shown time and time and time again that the mass of the people won't better themselves UNLESS they have something like education behind them.

The Middle Classes and most of those higher are there because of the education the government provided. A lot of people can't better themselves if they don't have the skills with which to do this.

I didn't say the US was pure capitalism, many of the things I pointed out the US govts do.

Crazy, like the Great Depression. Or like 2008.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

I didn't say I was necessarily in favor of bigger government.

And let's come back to this statement. So, you say you aren't "necessarily in favor of bigger government." But some of the items on your list quoted below suggests otherwise. Please, correct me if I'm wrong.

The police.
The fire service
Healthcare
Infrastructure
Welfare (and not this isn't me saying we should just hand out cash, I believe people should have worked in order to be able to get welfare, perhaps five years before they can get any welfare at all)
Armed forces
Prisons
Helping trade (this doesn't include invading countries in order to have your companies take over, nor does it include using the World Bank to fuck over countries)
To regulate Capitalism so that it doesn't go crazy
To make laws based around a system of Human Rights, ie, you can do what you like as long as it doesn't harm other people
To provide education fit for the needs of the citizens
To do other things based around making society more cohesive and more a place where people can have opportunities and chances to do things.

1. The police have nothing to do with capitalism.
2. Neither does the "fire service."
3. Healthcare should be up to the individual, not a government.
4. Infrastructure, yes.
5. Seems fair enough.
6. And what do our armed forces have to do with "pure capitalism"?
7. Sure, why not?
8. What? Do you mean the Trans Pacific Deal? Yeah, that's a bit excessive. Gives too much leeway for corporations to control the trade themselves.
9. Why regulate capitalism? Capitalism, when done the right way, creates an atmosphere where everyone has an opportunity. Just because someone doesn't succeed in a capitalistic society doesn't mean we should regulate it.
10. That isn't "Human rights" that simply making sure nobody is exposed to adversity.
11. That's all well and good, but when government controls education, you learn what they want you to learn, not what you want to learn.
12. Isn't that what we already have now?

You don't think police are the 'armed enforcers' of business? When the people protest business, who's business call to come crack heads?

 

[TemplarKormac]

You say it's up to the individual to better themselves. But it doesn't work. Sorry. It's been shown time and time and time again that the mass of the people won't better themselves UNLESS they have something like education behind them.

That's utter nonsense. If I throw a ball up in the air, I have to catch it. I don't need someone else to catch it for me. So, show me how "it's been shown time and time again." It's not the government's role to make me better, that's my job.

The Middle Classes and most of those higher are there because of the education the government provided.

Essentially you're saying what Obama said:

"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business—you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."

I'm sorry. But that is a completely asinine line of reasoning.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I don't get people who say they want smaller government.

Mainly because I don't believe they want smaller government.

Then what do you believe the role of government to be? Bigger? Smaller? Somewhere in between? What responsibilities should it have?

From what I've seen in the few years I've been posting in this board, the liberals in particular criticize those who want a smaller government, and that they want the government to interfere in her ability to give birth or have an abortion; whereas, in the process, the liberal unwittingly advocates for government regulation of abortion and abortifacients, which lies in direct conflict with their want for government to "stay out of the bedroom."

No, I don't think liberals want smaller government either.

I didn't say I was necessarily in favor of bigger government. I said I don't get many people who say they're in favor of smaller govt but clearly aren't.

My view on government would be that a government should make life better for people by doing certain things that are needed that wouldn't happen under pure capitalism.

The police.
The fire service
Healthcare
Infrastructure
Welfare (and not this isn't me saying we should just hand out cash, I believe people should have worked in order to be able to get welfare, perhaps five years before they can get any welfare at all)
Armed forces
Prisons
Helping trade (this doesn't include invading countries in order to have your companies take over, nor does it include using the World Bank to fuck over countries)
To regulate Capitalism so that it doesn't go crazy
To make laws based around a system of Human Rights, ie, you can do what you like as long as it doesn't harm other people
To provide education fit for the needs of the citizens
To do other things based around making society more cohesive and more a place where people can have opportunities and chances to do things.

There is a difference in governments. We have levels of government, but what the federal government is supposed to provide is listed in the US Constitution. Anything outside of that document should be handled by the various other governments such as state, county, city or town, only if they deem necessary and it's what the citizens overwhelmingly want.

 

[MarcATL]

Conservatives, libertarians, and most others on the right also have this ridiculous, inconsistent perception of what constitutes 'government.'

They bemoan the 'evils' of the Federal government, while at the same time take no issue with state and local governments seeking to deny citizens their rights, when in fact state and local governments exhibit the greater likelihood of indeed violating citizens' rights.

It was state and local governments who fought to retain segregation.

It was state and local governments who fought to deny citizens their right to counsel.

It was state and local governments who fought to deny interracial couples their right to marry.

It was state and local governments who fought to deny women their right to privacy.

It was state and local governments who fought to deny immigrants their right to due process.

It was state and local governments who fought to deny gay Americans their right to equal protection of the law.

It was state and local governments who fought to criminalize homosexuality in violation of the 14th Amendment.

It was state and local governments who fought to deny gay Americans their right to enter into marriage contracts.

And these are but a few examples of how state and local governments sought to violate the fundamental, inalienable rights and protected liberties of each American, where not only did conservatives, libertarians, and most others on the right fail to take issue with such violations, but actually supported and facilitated these and other violations of citizens' civil rights.

So much for 'small government' conservatives.

Dingle Berry


Identify one single post where Libertarians "took no issue with state and local governments seeking to deny citizens their rights"



Just so we are clear the ONLY rights that you have are:


1- to life and to defend the same

2- Liberty

3- Property


4- pursue happiness


.

The right to marry who you want falls under "persue happiness"

Small government lets industry dump anything they want into our air or water

Big government let's big government start endless wars, grow more govt, create massive social programs, rack up never ending debt etc.

About what I thought
Small Government means not helping the poor

Where have conservatives ever complained about big government meaning we have the largest military in world history?

I don't even like him much, but Rand Paul comes to mind. It's a fairly common viewpoint, actually.

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

 

[MarcATL]

Small government lets industry dump anything they want into our air or water

Hat's off to you rightwinger, anyone that can formulate an entire belief system based on nothing more than bumper sticker slogans and the latest fad at the tattoo parlor is truly a wonder to behold, well done.
.

Republicans have advocated abolishment of the EPA

Something they have been fighting for over thirty years......small government

What's funny is it was the republicans that established the EPA. There was a time when the republicans were a party that wanted to improve this country.


Today they wouldn't give a damn if all of our rivers had nuclear waste in them and our air looked like china's. They're truly evil and deranged freaks.

Not like you give a shit other than the talking point

What a great response!

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

 

[kaz]

Small government lets industry dump anything they want into our air or water

Hat's off to you rightwinger, anyone that can formulate an entire belief system based on nothing more than bumper sticker slogans and the latest fad at the tattoo parlor is truly a wonder to behold, well done.
.

Republicans have advocated abolishment of the EPA

Something they have been fighting for over thirty years......small government

What's funny is it was the republicans that established the EPA. There was a time when the republicans were a party that wanted to improve this country.


Today they wouldn't give a damn if all of our rivers had nuclear waste in them and our air looked like china's. They're truly evil and deranged freaks.

Not like you give a shit other than the talking point

What a great response!

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

Gotcha, a statement like Republicans "wouldn't give a damn if all of our rivers had nuclear waste in them and our air looked like china's" should get a thoughtful response after careful consideration...

 

[MarcATL]

This is inaccurate. Instead, the GOP has some of these issues because of factions that comprise it. Fiscal conservatives are defined by this smaller government thing. They're just one shrinking voice amid people who want theocratic policy or big spend foreign politics.

Honestly I don't think fiscal conservatism is a "shrinking" voice within circles of those that control the GOP, I think it's a completely dead one. The only difference between what the GOP wants and what the Democrats want is the specific configuration of massive central government. IMHO all the talk about "shrinking government" and "cutting spending" that comes out of the GOP is nothing more than bread and circuses to placate the rank and file membership.

As far as "big spend foreign politics" goes both major parties are parties of War, I think it's quite possible that we've now entered an era of war without end where Americans that are alive today will never again see a day where their country is at peace no matter which party is in power. The river of blood and treasure being funneled into raining destruction down on other parts of the globe now stretches as far as the eye can see and Washington has become so good at hiding the realities of War from the eyes of the average citizen and creating new dragons to slay that I cannot see how it will be stopped any time soon.

Seriously though, who are the people clamoring for war, liberals or conservatives?

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

 

[MarcATL]

The govts main duty is the protection of its citizens. First and foremost and no that doesn't mean never ending spending or wars. It's too bad that you can't be that honest on all of the worthless social programs that do nothing for the citizens.

That has never been the governments main duty

Social Programs do more for our citizens than the military does

You're an imbecile. Social programs didn't exist before FDR, so how can you say that protecting citizens was not the government's main duty?

Yes, the good ole days before FDR
Rampant poverty, dust bowls, soup lines, massive migrations looking for work. Every man for himself

A libertarian dream

Yep, the good ol' days AFTER FDR
Rampant poverty, dust bowls, soup lines, massive migrations looking for work. Every man for himself, gargantuan welfare/warfare police state


A socialist/fascist dream.


.

What rampant poverty in the US? You mean the one the Right creates by putting limits on our social safety nets? Or, how the Right complains about how the least wealthy in the US may obtain steak and lobster on their EBT cards?

Yep.

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

 

[kaz]

This is inaccurate. Instead, the GOP has some of these issues because of factions that comprise it. Fiscal conservatives are defined by this smaller government thing. They're just one shrinking voice amid people who want theocratic policy or big spend foreign politics.

Honestly I don't think fiscal conservatism is a "shrinking" voice within circles of those that control the GOP, I think it's a completely dead one. The only difference between what the GOP wants and what the Democrats want is the specific configuration of massive central government. IMHO all the talk about "shrinking government" and "cutting spending" that comes out of the GOP is nothing more than bread and circuses to placate the rank and file membership.

As far as "big spend foreign politics" goes both major parties are parties of War, I think it's quite possible that we've now entered an era of war without end where Americans that are alive today will never again see a day where their country is at peace no matter which party is in power. The river of blood and treasure being funneled into raining destruction down on other parts of the globe now stretches as far as the eye can see and Washington has become so good at hiding the realities of War from the eyes of the average citizen and creating new dragons to slay that I cannot see how it will be stopped any time soon.

Seriously though, who are the people clamoring for war, liberals or conservatives?

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

Iraq - Both
Afghanistan - Both
Iran -Republicans
Libya - Democrats
Syria - Democrats

I'm not seeing a clear pattern of one party over the other in there, Holmes. You both seem to like wars

 

[MarcATL]

This is inaccurate. Instead, the GOP has some of these issues because of factions that comprise it. Fiscal conservatives are defined by this smaller government thing. They're just one shrinking voice amid people who want theocratic policy or big spend foreign politics.

Honestly I don't think fiscal conservatism is a "shrinking" voice within circles of those that control the GOP, I think it's a completely dead one. The only difference between what the GOP wants and what the Democrats want is the specific configuration of massive central government. IMHO all the talk about "shrinking government" and "cutting spending" that comes out of the GOP is nothing more than bread and circuses to placate the rank and file membership.

As far as "big spend foreign politics" goes both major parties are parties of War, I think it's quite possible that we've now entered an era of war without end where Americans that are alive today will never again see a day where their country is at peace no matter which party is in power. The river of blood and treasure being funneled into raining destruction down on other parts of the globe now stretches as far as the eye can see and Washington has become so good at hiding the realities of War from the eyes of the average citizen and creating new dragons to slay that I cannot see how it will be stopped any time soon.

Seriously though, who are the people clamoring for war, liberals or conservatives?

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

Iraq - Both
Afghanistan - Both
Iran -Republicans
Libya - Democrats
Syria - Democrats

I'm not seeing a clear pattern of one party over the other in there, Holmes. You both seem to like wars

You're not being honest here, either that or you simply have no clue what clamoring means.

And I didn't say Republicans or Democrats, I said conservatives or liberals.

Think.

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

 

[kaz]

This is inaccurate. Instead, the GOP has some of these issues because of factions that comprise it. Fiscal conservatives are defined by this smaller government thing. They're just one shrinking voice amid people who want theocratic policy or big spend foreign politics.

Honestly I don't think fiscal conservatism is a "shrinking" voice within circles of those that control the GOP, I think it's a completely dead one. The only difference between what the GOP wants and what the Democrats want is the specific configuration of massive central government. IMHO all the talk about "shrinking government" and "cutting spending" that comes out of the GOP is nothing more than bread and circuses to placate the rank and file membership.

As far as "big spend foreign politics" goes both major parties are parties of War, I think it's quite possible that we've now entered an era of war without end where Americans that are alive today will never again see a day where their country is at peace no matter which party is in power. The river of blood and treasure being funneled into raining destruction down on other parts of the globe now stretches as far as the eye can see and Washington has become so good at hiding the realities of War from the eyes of the average citizen and creating new dragons to slay that I cannot see how it will be stopped any time soon.

Seriously though, who are the people clamoring for war, liberals or conservatives?

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

Iraq - Both
Afghanistan - Both
Iran -Republicans
Libya - Democrats
Syria - Democrats

I'm not seeing a clear pattern of one party over the other in there, Holmes. You both seem to like wars

You're not being honest here, either that or you simply have no clue what clamoring means.

And I didn't say Republicans or Democrats, I said conservatives or liberals.

Think.

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

How does that change the answer?

 

[Programmer]

This is inaccurate. Instead, the GOP has some of these issues because of factions that comprise it. Fiscal conservatives are defined by this smaller government thing. They're just one shrinking voice amid people who want theocratic policy or big spend foreign politics.

Honestly I don't think fiscal conservatism is a "shrinking" voice within circles of those that control the GOP, I think it's a completely dead one. The only difference between what the GOP wants and what the Democrats want is the specific configuration of massive central government. IMHO all the talk about "shrinking government" and "cutting spending" that comes out of the GOP is nothing more than bread and circuses to placate the rank and file membership.

As far as "big spend foreign politics" goes both major parties are parties of War, I think it's quite possible that we've now entered an era of war without end where Americans that are alive today will never again see a day where their country is at peace no matter which party is in power. The river of blood and treasure being funneled into raining destruction down on other parts of the globe now stretches as far as the eye can see and Washington has become so good at hiding the realities of War from the eyes of the average citizen and creating new dragons to slay that I cannot see how it will be stopped any time soon.

Seriously though, who are the people clamoring for war, liberals or conservatives?

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

The military and the industry who supplies them have friends everywhere. Moreover the US has friends/enimies everywhere.

If you were serious about the seriously, though, both parties make the war clamor. Now does it seem like liberals get paid off by the Airforce, drone and missle-making Lockheed types, while conservatives tend toward boots and Remington and company? To, me? Yes. But that may even be an illusion. Are any of these factions too sanctified to crusade our war machine? Historically? No. No illusions.

 

[MarcATL]

This is inaccurate. Instead, the GOP has some of these issues because of factions that comprise it. Fiscal conservatives are defined by this smaller government thing. They're just one shrinking voice amid people who want theocratic policy or big spend foreign politics.

Honestly I don't think fiscal conservatism is a "shrinking" voice within circles of those that control the GOP, I think it's a completely dead one. The only difference between what the GOP wants and what the Democrats want is the specific configuration of massive central government. IMHO all the talk about "shrinking government" and "cutting spending" that comes out of the GOP is nothing more than bread and circuses to placate the rank and file membership.

As far as "big spend foreign politics" goes both major parties are parties of War, I think it's quite possible that we've now entered an era of war without end where Americans that are alive today will never again see a day where their country is at peace no matter which party is in power. The river of blood and treasure being funneled into raining destruction down on other parts of the globe now stretches as far as the eye can see and Washington has become so good at hiding the realities of War from the eyes of the average citizen and creating new dragons to slay that I cannot see how it will be stopped any time soon.

Seriously though, who are the people clamoring for war, liberals or conservatives?

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

Iraq - Both
Afghanistan - Both
Iran -Republicans
Libya - Democrats
Syria - Democrats

I'm not seeing a clear pattern of one party over the other in there, Holmes. You both seem to like wars

You're not being honest here, either that or you simply have no clue what clamoring means.

And I didn't say Republicans or Democrats, I said conservatives or liberals.

Think.

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

How does that change the answer?

That's your problem right there, you don't realize that words have meanings.

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

 

[frigidweirdo]

454,301:1 'congress people' in (2,987 seats) China.

733,103:1 for USA (435 members of Congress.)

As posted above, ideal representative number is 38,500:1

We need bigger, not small government if only in the sense of lots more reps.

You forgot state representative, presidents, governors, and so on. In China you might as well say 1.3 billion:1. Xi is in charge, no one else.