Where Had DeCentralized Government Actually Worked?

[bripat9643]

And we weren't number one until the twentieth century, which was my main point. The the original point we're debating and you've been ignoring is....

You seem to be admitting that progressives weren't responsible for the economic growth that made America "Number one." If that's the case, then your point is idiotic. Your "point" is just an admission that progressives cashed in on the economic growth that laizzes faire policies created.

Either the progressives made the economy grow before 1912, or they didn't. If you say they did, then you're an imbecile, and if you admit they didn't, then you're engaging in verbal masturbation.

Oh, and BTW, America was probably the most powerful nation on Earth before Wilson was elected. However, that fact didn't become apparent until WW I made it obvious to everyone.

Here's the progressive record of accomplishments:

1. The Great Depression
2. WWI
3. WWII
4. Eugenics
5. Social Darwinism
6. Imperialism
7. Censorship (Palmer raids)
8. The invention of pervasive government propaganda
9. Concentration camps
10. Totalitarianism
11. Segregating the military
12. Massive inflation of our currency.
13. Massive government debt.
14. Fascism
15. The Holocaust.
16. Massive starvation

that's what it means to be "Number One!"

 

[uscitizen]

Thought so.

And your point is...?

Thought it was obvious: Leftist-dominated public education has been a failure.

All the right wanted was MBA's the left got education degrees.
Why did the right abandon education?

 

[ShackledNation]

Hrm... gee, we had a decentralized government before 1900 (the Progressive era), that means we couldn't have had any wars!

Wait, no that's stupid. The situation leading up to the world wars is a mite more complicated than your simple "centralized government did it."

Let me redirect you to the picture of the strawman...

Did I ever say decentralized powers could never win wars? No. Did I ever say centralized government was the only factor? No. And if I did, it would be stupid. But you are the only one who keeps saying that because you cannot address the real arguments.

This is what you said:



and



You more or less said centralized government was to blame. If you wanted to post other stuff besides that, then you should've instead of letting your post be characterized by that.



Then don't leave out information.

Says the guy who attributes mainly our economic growth with decentralized government and decentralized government only. Don't blame me for only bringing that up.

I never said that, bud. Hence the strawman.

And as a decentralized power, the United States had tremendous growth. The US started out as a joke. Yet it became one of the fastest growing economies in the world. Being number 1 is irrelevant. The fact that it could even challenge the economic power of Europe in the 19th century at all after existed for hardly 100 years is an amazing accomplishment.

You say an awful lot in your posts by the information you choose to omit.

And gloss over the actual point, is that we weren't number one until the twentieth century, around the time that Oddball pegs as our downfall due to Progressives.

Considering this topic is dealing with the issue of centralization vs. decentralization, yes, I will focus on those two issues rather than bring up every other cause of worldly problems.

But the fact that I do not bring up those causes does not mean I do not recognize them. No matter what you want to believe, I do not argue what you claim I argue, period. You built up a strawman argument, and if you had any decency you would ask for clarification of my position rather than try and prove your argument is not a strawman. Your attempt to rationalize why is pathetic.

And by the way, the US became the number 1 economy in the 1880s.
http://www.international-issues.org/wp/?p=968

You respond to arguments with fallacies, and build up your own arguments on misinformation.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Nothing in that "I'm-the-smartest-dicksmoker-in-the-room" OP of your that says anything about the last 40 years.....Seriously weak attempt at moving the goalposts.
.

From the OP:
"So examples of where in modern history has what you want, worked in the long term or even at all?"

I guess I could have been more clear but I really didn't think anyone would consider pre-telephone, car, plane or even internet "Modern history. All the other posters have already figured this out but maybe you just didn't catch the last sentence or something.

But okay, enough having fun at the expense of others. You came into the post, guns drawn and firing insults etc... You could have just made a good argument or pointed out specifically what you saw as flaws in my argument, as Code1211 has just done an excellent job of, using with logic, reason and calm. Instead, you got a little um, emotional and I poked some fun at you. I don't draw first but I do return fire with full auto.
But enough is enough. It is not in my nature to just go on like that.
So. I apologize for insulting you.

 

[ShackledNation]

Nothing in that "I'm-the-smartest-dicksmoker-in-the-room" OP of your that says anything about the last 40 years.....Seriously weak attempt at moving the goalposts.
.

From the OP:
"So examples of where in modern history has what you want, worked in the long term or even at all?"

I guess I could have been more clear but I really didn't think anyone would consider pre-telephone, car, plane or even internet "Modern history. All the other posters have already figured this out but maybe you just didn't catch the last sentence or something.

But okay, enough having fun at the expense of others. You came into the post, guns drawn and firing insults etc... You could have just made a good argument or pointed out specifically what you saw as flaws in my argument, as Code1211 has just done an excellent job of, using with logic, reason and calm. Instead, you got a little um, emotional and I poked some fun at you. I don't draw first but I do return fire with full auto.
But enough is enough. It is not in my nature to just go on like that.
So. I apologize for insulting you.

History before the internet matters. If the only way you can successfully defend your argument is by disqualifying hundreds of years of history, then you have a very weak argument.

 

[Wiseacre]

I'm pretty sure that governments that were overly centralized have all failed miserably. Seems to be that we'd be better off allowing and even requiring the states to manage some functions that need to be tailored to individual state needs rather than a one size fits all federal approach. I thnk the federal gov't should be limited to those roles that must be addressed for everybody, like defense, foreign policy, immigration, etc. Things like education, housing, and health care should be managed at the state level.

 

[tonystewart1]

I'm pretty sure that governments that were overly centralized have all failed miserably. Seems to be that we'd be better off allowing and even requiring the states to manage some functions that need to be tailored to individual state needs rather than a one size fits all federal approach. I thnk the federal gov't should be limited to those roles that must be addressed for everybody, like defense, foreign policy, immigration, etc. Things like education, housing, and health care should be managed at the state level.

Me and the constituion of the US agree with you. Unfortunatly for the past several decades the federal bench does not agree with you.

 

[IndependntLogic]

You seem to be making two separate charges:
1. Benefits to the citizenry.
2. Strength of the nation.

I realize that strength is required to protect the citizens, but only to a point.

One of the prorities of the Founders was to bring the seat of government closer to the governed. That is why they limited Federal Powers and left all powers except those enumerated to the states and to the people. They were mindful of exactly the dichotomy you present: Individual liberty and protection from outside force of arms.

A strong Central Government is best represented by a dictatorship or a monarchy with divine rights. I would assume that you are not endorsing Caligula or Louis XVI.

Conservatives of my ilk are not endorsing anarchy, so your views and mine play out this debate in the mid ground of political thinking.

All of that said, the Federal Government is out of control. In the midst of this sudden slide into bankruptcy, we witnessed the Big 0 initiating a new agency to be headed by the jeopardy winner. Seriously? Was there not already an agency that could have performed that task? The Consumer Financial Protection Beaureau? RU Kidding me? C'mon... This is an utter waste of money, time, effort and energy. A political game move. Shuffle board while the ship is sinking.

Doesn't seem relevant to what I was discussing but okay. Reminds me of Bush and DHS. WTF? All that accomplished was another bureauctatic clusterf*ck. Same with spending. So I see Obama, Bush, & Reagan as our Big Spender presidents. Out of curiosity, do you? I ask because you only mention Obama.

Need more examples? you mentioned the EPA. The Big 0's strangulation of business was not happening fast enough for him. Seemed to be pretty quick to me, but he needed more speed. The Congress, which cannot pass a budget (a thing he never makes note of) also cannot pass Environmental regulation. To circumvent this, he has the agency illegally create regulation not voted on by Congress and then enforces them, again illegally, by the administative branch.

Okay. That's bad. I don't like it. We're still not anywhere near what I was discussing but I can appreciate your concern.

This is a strong, centralized government that is acting in violation of the spirit and letter of the law to accomplish the desires and caprices of the MAN, not the laws, which head the government.

You mean like Bush did? Where were you guys under that "Conservative" (not by my definition!) president? Where was your outrage over spending, circumventing or just plain breaking laws then?

So we play in the mid ground. We had been a nation of laws. We are becomeing a nation of men. When we drift to the end of the spectrum that allows our Governors to Govern men outside the spirit and the letter of the law, we are nearing the ground of dictatorship and monarchy.

The Libs complained and are still complaining about W and the Cons are complaining about the Big 0. I complain about both.

Ah. Okay. So you're different. Many claim that Bush was legal, sweet and delicious and that all is Obama's fault. Nice to see someone more objective. As far as still complaining about Bush, see my signature

Going to war without Congressional permission is a big deal. Well, not so much anymore. Today our wars should be sponsored by Nike: Just Do It.

Hitler combined the offices of President and Chancellor and burned the Riechstag. Because the economy was vastly improved, the standing of Germany among nations was restored and the people who were starving were now happy, they let it go.

How far from that are we today? Thankfully, the Big 0 is an inept boob without a clue. He can't do this. What if we get another Clinton or Reagan in office with a huge rise in the economy, renewed respect abroad and an obstnate, do-nothing Congress? What if that guy, with all of the growth in the Centralized powers you endorse is a Hitler clone?

I don't have any fears of a presidential coup de grace. None. Just try to keep a secret in The District.

We need to be a nation of laws that protect our liberties and not a nation of men that use laws to attack them. When our leaders rise above the law, our citizens are crushed beneath them.

If you're still reading this, my apologies.

Nah, no problem! A pretty good post and you expressed dissent without slinging petty insults or labeling me a "Secret Agent Cleverly Disguised Liberal Obama Worshipper" or whatever.

So here's my point and if it is not perfectly clear, my apologies. I tend to assume people will have a certain level of intellect (which in your case seems a safe bet) and can tell the difference between humorous hyperbole and fanatical beliefs.

You mention the Middle Ground. I'm with you. Obviously, I don't want a nanny-state, liberal totalitarian government of whatever the more extreme folks label anyone disagreeing with them as being or wanting.
So it's a matter of what you want. I'm not discussing Obama or Bush. Both suck. I'm discussing the political ideology of the Tea Party & Libertarians in general. So instead of diverting the subject with finger pointing, maybe we can just discuss your ideology itself. Remember, I once had the impression that all you guys were a bunch of whackjob weirdos and it's taken a bit of work, to get past the instant defensiveness and insults that come when daring to so much as ask questions!
So if we got rid of all the agencies and Federal controls you want, I see a nation of corporatocratic city-states and robber barons where local politicans are owned by local corporations who then dictate what environmental standards will be, labor laws will be, legislate elimination of culpability and so on.
This is what happens all over the world when a strong, centralized government is either eliminated or replaced by a weak one. Look at all the former CIS countries. Would you want what they have for us? Mexico? Peru? Malaysia? Slovakia?
Where in the last 40 years, has a country's citizens benefitted from a weak central government? I just haven't seen it.

And btw, you seem intelligent and reasonable enough that you won't use the old whackjob tactic of projecting "If you don't agree with my extreme view, you MUST want the polar opposite extreme view!". I have already listed over 2 dozen Federal agencies I would eliminate entirely and that I agree with several of the TP's, that we could eliminate a lot of Federal power. I'm just addressing the exdtreme view (by extreme, I mean only that you want extreme change - which is not necessarily a bad thing) of "Get rid of EVERYTHING that isn't specified in the USC!"

 

[Oddball]

Nothing in that "I'm-the-smartest-dicksmoker-in-the-room" OP of your that says anything about the last 40 years.....Seriously weak attempt at moving the goalposts.
.

From the OP:
"So examples of where in modern history has what you want, worked in the long term or even at all?"

I guess I could have been more clear but I really didn't think anyone would consider pre-telephone, car, plane or even internet "Modern history. All the other posters have already figured this out but maybe you just didn't catch the last sentence or something.

But okay, enough having fun at the expense of others. You came into the post, guns drawn and firing insults etc... You could have just made a good argument or pointed out specifically what you saw as flaws in my argument, as Code1211 has just done an excellent job of, using with logic, reason and calm. Instead, you got a little um, emotional and I poked some fun at you. I don't draw first but I do return fire with full auto.
But enough is enough. It is not in my nature to just go on like that.
So. I apologize for insulting you.

Irrelevant to the fact that the original republic was set forth as a framework for national defense and trade internationally, and to provide a structure for legal redress for instances of aggression and fraud domestically...The existence of cars, the internet, semi-automatic weapons and whatever trapping of modern living you care to mention is a red herring.

And if you're the one who wants to play the game of "yeahbutyoustartedit!", let's remember who trotted out the condescending little "let me dumb this down for you" meme....You might as well know it now that I don't suffer insolent windbags for even a moment.

 

[daveman]

And your point is...?

Thought it was obvious: Leftist-dominated public education has been a failure.

As Oddball's misunderstanding of history shows.

Ahhh. So his public education was poor -- but your public education was exemplary.

 

[daveman]

And your point is...?

Thought it was obvious: Leftist-dominated public education has been a failure.

All the right wanted was MBA's the left got education degrees.
Why did the right abandon education?

Why did you abandon independent, rational thought for mindlessly parroting bigoted stereotypes?

Assuming, of course, you ever thought for yourself to begin with...

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

And your point is...?

Thought it was obvious: Leftist-dominated public education has been a failure.

All the right wanted was MBA's the left got education degrees.
Why did the right abandon education?

How exactly is getting an MBA abandoning education?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Not to mention an MBA can take you into various fields. An education degree is useless outside the public school system.

 

[ShackledNation]

An education degree is useless if you don't know anything to teach.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Nothing in that "I'm-the-smartest-dicksmoker-in-the-room" OP of your that says anything about the last 40 years.....Seriously weak attempt at moving the goalposts.
.

From the OP:
"So examples of where in modern history has what you want, worked in the long term or even at all?"

I guess I could have been more clear but I really didn't think anyone would consider pre-telephone, car, plane or even internet "Modern history. All the other posters have already figured this out but maybe you just didn't catch the last sentence or something.

But okay, enough having fun at the expense of others. You came into the post, guns drawn and firing insults etc... You could have just made a good argument or pointed out specifically what you saw as flaws in my argument, as Code1211 has just done an excellent job of, using with logic, reason and calm. Instead, you got a little um, emotional and I poked some fun at you. I don't draw first but I do return fire with full auto.
But enough is enough. It is not in my nature to just go on like that.
So. I apologize for insulting you.

Irrelevant to the fact that the original republic was set forth as a framework for national defense and trade internationally, and to provide a structure for legal redress for instances of aggression and fraud domestically...The existence of cars, the internet, semi-automatic weapons and whatever trapping of modern living you care to mention is a red herring.

And if you're the one who wants to play the game of "yeahbutyoustartedit!", let's remember who trotted out the condescending little "let me dumb this down for you" meme....You might as well know it now that I don't suffer insolent windbags for even a moment.

LOL! Yeah okay whatever.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I'm pretty sure that governments that were overly centralized have all failed miserably. Seems to be that we'd be better off allowing and even requiring the states to manage some functions that need to be tailored to individual state needs rather than a one size fits all federal approach. I thnk the federal gov't should be limited to those roles that must be addressed for everybody, like defense, foreign policy, immigration, etc. Things like education, housing, and health care should be managed at the state level.

And poorer states that can’t manage to afford its citizens basic services such as housing and health care, do they simply go without?

And what of due process and civil rights issues when the states or their local jurisdictions act outside of the Constitution, may the citizens of those states seek relief in Federal Court.

What of roads, bridges, water and sewer treatment, and energy needs that the poorer states can’t address on their own? Certainly you’re not advocating that American citizens of those states be subject to Third World conditions.

What you and others on the right fail to understand is that much of the benefits enjoyed by the people of the many states are a result of Federal funding and oversight, that this is the very nature of a modern, 21st Century industrialized society; we have the government we have accordingly. Efforts, therefore, to tear down the Federal edifice and reconfigure a governing structure per conservative dogma is a futile waste of time. You can’t bring back the 18th Century. Accept reality, here and now, and move on.

As the OP must have inferred by now, no, there are no examples of successful modern day (i.e. post WWII) decentralized governments.

That those on the right can only cite the American government of the 18th and 19th Centuries is telling and significant, that indeed the manifestation of the Federal government we have now was both inevitable and unavoidable, part of the creation of a modern, successful, industrialized society. To believe otherwise is naïve.

 

[ShackledNation]

I'm pretty sure that governments that were overly centralized have all failed miserably. Seems to be that we'd be better off allowing and even requiring the states to manage some functions that need to be tailored to individual state needs rather than a one size fits all federal approach. I thnk the federal gov't should be limited to those roles that must be addressed for everybody, like defense, foreign policy, immigration, etc. Things like education, housing, and health care should be managed at the state level.

1. And poorer states that can’t manage to afford its citizens basic services such as housing and health care, do they simply go without?

2. And what of due process and civil rights issues when the states or their local jurisdictions act outside of the Constitution, may the citizens of those states seek relief in Federal Court.

3. What of roads, bridges, water and sewer treatment, and energy needs that the poorer states can’t address on their own? Certainly you’re not advocating that American citizens of those states be subject to Third World conditions.

4. What you and others on the right fail to understand is that much of the benefits enjoyed by the people of the many states are a result of Federal funding and oversight, that this is the very nature of a modern, 21st Century industrialized society; we have the government we have accordingly. Efforts, therefore, to tear down the Federal edifice and reconfigure a governing structure per conservative dogma is a futile waste of time. You can’t bring back the 18th Century. Accept reality, here and now, and move on.

5. As the OP must have inferred by now, no, there are no examples of successful modern day (i.e. post WWII) decentralized governments.

6. That those on the right can only cite the American government of the 18th and 19th Centuries is telling and significant, that indeed the manifestation of the Federal government we have now was both inevitable and unavoidable, part of the creation of a modern, successful, industrialized society. To believe otherwise is naïve.

1. Government is not necessary to provide housing and healthcare, and even if it were wealth and centralization are two different concepts. Just as a poorer state could not provide those services, a poorer central government could not. Furthermore, because in a completely centralized system there is only a one size fits all policy, there is less room to experiment with policies to find the most efficient and beneficial one.

2. Decentralization does not mean no central power. Centralized states are much more likely to violate civil liberties. Ask citizens of North Korea, China, Nazi Germany, and the Soviet Union how many civil liberties they have. Government does not grant us our liberties. We have them by nature of being human beings. History has proven government more often than not, especially more centralized government, violates these liberties more than it protects them.

3. Why are the states poor in the first place? If they are poor because they have bad statist policy, then you bet they should face the consequences. What of the citizens? If a state is really in such terrible shape, the citizens are completely free to move to another state. Because of this freedom, the state has more incentive to correct bad policy. If the central government has bad policy, its citizens will find it much more difficult to get up and move out of the country.

4. Federal laws we enjoy? Like the terrible education system from federal law no child left behind? Like the federal ban on marijuana? Like the terrible way our federal government manages our borders? Those are specific examples of how centralization makes things worse. You had only general platitudes. Do you have specific examples of how the central government has made our lives all that better in ways individuals states could not have? Why do you think one centralized power that is less representative of individuals in society will benefit those individuals more than smaller concentrations of power that are more representative of individuals in society? And don't start with the "21st century" BS. What about the 21st century means government must be more centralized?

5. What you fail to realize is that there are pretty much no modern day examples of decentralized powers at all because central governments have usurped authority throughout the 20th century. So rather than look at all of history, supporters of strong central governments have to cherry-pick data by limiting it to the past 60 years and pretending like nothing else ever happened. History didn't start post WWII. Maybe that is when you were born, but life existed before your birth, as I am sure you have figured out by now.

6. Ironic in that the modern industrial society we enjoy now was created during the 19th century, the period of decentralization and free market capitalism. Not to mention you offered absolutely no thought out argument, only an unsupported statement of propaganda. The fact that you ignore the best example of decentralized government in our own country simply because it occurred farther back in history than you can remember is the epitome of naïveté.

 

[Wiseacre]

I'm pretty sure that governments that were overly centralized have all failed miserably. Seems to be that we'd be better off allowing and even requiring the states to manage some functions that need to be tailored to individual state needs rather than a one size fits all federal approach. I thnk the federal gov't should be limited to those roles that must be addressed for everybody, like defense, foreign policy, immigration, etc. Things like education, housing, and health care should be managed at the state level.

And poorer states that can’t manage to afford its citizens basic services such as housing and health care, do they simply go without?

And what of due process and civil rights issues when the states or their local jurisdictions act outside of the Constitution, may the citizens of those states seek relief in Federal Court.

What of roads, bridges, water and sewer treatment, and energy needs that the poorer states can’t address on their own? Certainly you’re not advocating that American citizens of those states be subject to Third World conditions.

What you and others on the right fail to understand is that much of the benefits enjoyed by the people of the many states are a result of Federal funding and oversight, that this is the very nature of a modern, 21st Century industrialized society; we have the government we have accordingly. Efforts, therefore, to tear down the Federal edifice and reconfigure a governing structure per conservative dogma is a futile waste of time. You can’t bring back the 18th Century. Accept reality, here and now, and move on.

As the OP must have inferred by now, no, there are no examples of successful modern day (i.e. post WWII) decentralized governments.

That those on the right can only cite the American government of the 18th and 19th Centuries is telling and significant, that indeed the manifestation of the Federal government we have now was both inevitable and unavoidable, part of the creation of a modern, successful, industrialized society. To believe otherwise is naïve.

I think the poorer states are going to have to find the least costly ways to provide basic services, no doubt starting with denying collective bargaining right for wages and benefits to public unions and/or contracting out some functions. If they screw it up, then the voters will have to hold them accountable.

As far as due process is concerned, certainly there needs to be federal courts to determine the constitutionality of state laws, but the federal gov't has to allow states to manage their resources as they see fit. Not saying there can't be some federal oversight for things like polution, safety, and security, but the states ought to be more autonomous in deciding what solutions are best for them.

You can call it 18th century if you want, I call it 21st century efficiencies that save everybody money. To assume that the federal gov't can find solutions that are optimal for every state is really foolish. If you believe an outsized bloated federal bureaucracy is the best answer for all our problems then I think it is you who is being naive.

 

[Oddball]

From the OP:
"So examples of where in modern history has what you want, worked in the long term or even at all?"

I guess I could have been more clear but I really didn't think anyone would consider pre-telephone, car, plane or even internet "Modern history. All the other posters have already figured this out but maybe you just didn't catch the last sentence or something.

But okay, enough having fun at the expense of others. You came into the post, guns drawn and firing insults etc... You could have just made a good argument or pointed out specifically what you saw as flaws in my argument, as Code1211 has just done an excellent job of, using with logic, reason and calm. Instead, you got a little um, emotional and I poked some fun at you. I don't draw first but I do return fire with full auto.
But enough is enough. It is not in my nature to just go on like that.
So. I apologize for insulting you.

Irrelevant to the fact that the original republic was set forth as a framework for national defense and trade internationally, and to provide a structure for legal redress for instances of aggression and fraud domestically...The existence of cars, the internet, semi-automatic weapons and whatever trapping of modern living you care to mention is a red herring.

And if you're the one who wants to play the game of "yeahbutyoustartedit!", let's remember who trotted out the condescending little "let me dumb this down for you" meme....You might as well know it now that I don't suffer insolent windbags for even a moment.

LOL! Yeah okay whatever.

Wowzers!...Now there's an irrefutable rebuff!

 

[thereisnospoon]

Ah, the predictible. When you ass is owned on a topic or issue, project something onto the other debater.

No. Let me dumb this down. Where has less government worked in the last 40 years - or is working now? There are dozens of countries in existence now with almost no corporate regualtion etc... which ones exemplify what you want for America?
Hell, I even gave you a free example with the Ukraine! If you want, you can start with why you would like us to be like them...

"Less government" Interesting you used that term.
There is good government and bad government.
What we conservatives refer to as "less government" is "less intrusive and expensive".
Honest people and good business people want ot be left alone. We do not want overbearing and expensive government. You do know to what I refer. We object to overstuffed, over staffed bureaucratic government.
Regulation is good. It works. It keeps people and business honest. What we don't need is a government that sometimes arbitrarily enforces rules on one while ignoring another.
For example.....Should the federal government have the right to shut down an entire food processing plant because an employee got the ear of some local bureaucrat in the Dept of Agriculture office who then sent an inspector to the plant and happened to see a couple of workers not wearing the government mandated safety gloves, but gloves that were more comfortable and worked better than the OSHA standard gloves? Is this the kind of government you believe to be the best way to go? One size fits all? No common sense?
IS it your assertion that the EPA can stop an entire project well under way because some enviro wacko discovered a rare Mussel living in a creek that is less than 4 feet wide that the government just happened to label as "threatened"....Never mind the fact that this particular creature is known to exist in hundreds of creeks in the same area?
Is this ok with you?

Fist let's start with your assumptions. You do not know what being a good parent is. Is it rather presumptuous for me to say that? Of course. You say that I don't know what it is to want a less intrusive government? I own a business. I know all about intrusive government. So tell you what. I won't assume you don't things until you tell me so. There is in fact much I didn't know until coming here. Like how reasonable many Tea Partiers, Libertarians etc... are, for example. Obviously that doesn't mean I agree with them on everything. Like this issue.

So to address your point. I've lived in over a dozen countries and traveled to many more. Two things you can always count on people complaining about are taxes and government. About the only exceptions I can think of are are Switzerland and people from Scandinavia always seem pretty happy with their governments.
Other than that? No one. The complaints almost always fall into one of three categories:

My government is corrupt!

or

My government is too intrusive!

or

Both of the above.

Now our govenment is far from corruption free but compared to say Columbia, Slovakia or Russia? Phew! Glad we have what we have! However, unlike Ron Paul, I would love to see PACs and Lobbyists have to disclose very penny passed anywhere. And yes of course, it sure could use some improving.
As far as intrusive. I own a business and sometimes government regs are a real pain in the buttocks. But I don't know. I hire who I want to hire, have moved my company a couple times, fire people when they deserve to be fired, do business with whomever I want, wherever I want, all over the world etc...
I've never walked a city street and had a cop ask me for my papers here (I'm not Hispanic) but that's definitely happened overseas. No big deal, you just give them a photo copy of your passport and the equivalent of a few American dollars and then go about your way. But here, unless you're a Hispanic in AZ, the government generally doesn't intrude.
I go on the internet and say "Obama sucks!" on a regualr basis. No one has shown up at my door. Even more importantly, I am just finishing a novel (on page 500 - down to the wire - Phew!) and have researched Amonium Nitrate Fuel Oil preparation, Nuclear power plant security and vulnerabilities, HEU sources and other things that I'm SURE the Fed has peeked at. Still no one at the door. No intrusion.
So where is all this intrustion? Why do you feel so oppressed? I don't. I'm happy here!

Just my two cents...

Intrusion....Let's see.
First, try responding to my comments from above and we will the have a conversation.
Go.....BTW, just to inform you, those examples I gave were not hypothetical. Those incidents actually occurred.
Or how about when the federal government during the Clinton admin went on a land grab spree. Millions of acres of open land grabbed up by the federal government.
When the federal government decides without doing their homework, to mandate the type of toilets we can have. Guess what? Those stupid things don't save water , they waste it. People simply flush twice. Or those idiotic compact fluorescent bulbs which cost 5 times as much as an incandescent and they last half as long. Also, disposal according to strict EPA guidelines requires the user to take the spent bulbs to a landfill for special disposal. If one breaks, technically a HAZMAT crew has to be summoned.
These are just a couple of examples of government intrusion and stupidity.
You explain that due to the fact that you've not been bothered it's ok..
It's not ok. Our federal government has incrementally been eroding our freedoms away.
Political correctness runs amok.
Now, back to my examples in my previous post. Address those and we will have a chat. Ignore them, and we're through here.