Why should government be kept smaller, and restricted to only certain tasks?

[Little-Acorn]

Government is necessary for some things, but should do as little as possible, and should confine itself to important functions that private persons or groups CANNOT DO AT ALL. Examples include National Defense, smoothing the course of interstate commerce with minimal interference in that commerce, conducting foreign relations, setting national standards for money, weights, and measures, dispassionately pursuing and prosecuting criminal behavior, etc.

Occasional events like wars might cause govt departments designed to deal with them, to grow to a size appropriate to do so. But afterward govt must reduce back to its smaller size.

If you feel that government can do something better than private people or groups can do it, that's insufficient reason to grant govt authority to do it. If private people can do it at all, it must be denied to govt unequivocally.

The reason for these restrictions, is that:
(a) Government cannot do anything well, due in part to the fact that no one can compete with it, and will always be rife with sloth and inefficiency;
(b) Government's only ability is to restrict and punish its citizens. This is activity extremely vulnerable to abuse, and capable of damaging and destroying lives by the millions if not carefully watched and restrained.
(c) History grimly shows that when government is allowed more authority than necessary, the imperfect humans it's made of begin to abuse that power, virtually every time. And with time, that abuse only increases, often rising to disastrous levels.

For these reasons, the powers given to government must be carefull spelled out and restricted, with those it restricts retaining full power to change or abolish it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Government is necessary for some things, but should do as little as possible, and should confine itself to important functions that private persons or groups CANNOT DO AT ALL. Examples include National Defense, smoothing the course of interstate commerce with minimal interference in that commerce, conducting foreign relations, setting national standards for money, weights, and measures, dispassionately pursuing and prosecuting criminal behavior, etc.

Occasional events like wars might cause govt departments designed to deal with them, to grow to a size appropriate to do so. But afterward govt must reduce back to its smaller size.

If you feel that government can do something better than private people or groups can do it, that's insufficient reason to grant govt authority to do it. If private people can do it at all, it must be denied to govt unequivocally.

The reason for these restrictions, is that:
(a) Government cannot do anything well, due in part to the fact that no one can compete with it, and will always be rife with sloth and inefficiency;
(b) Government's only ability is to restrict and punish its citizens. This is activity extremely vulnerable to abuse, and capable of damaging and destroying lives by the millions if not carefully watched and restrained.
(c) History grimly shows that when government is allowed more authority than necessary, the imperfect humans it's made of begin to abuse that power, virtually every time. And with time, that abuse only increases, often rising to disastrous levels.

For these reasons, the powers given to government must be carefull spelled out and restricted, with those it restricts retaining full power to change or abolish it.

If the private sector can defend the country better than the government, why have a government run defense department and all else that relates to our national security?

 

[Little-Acorn]

If the private sector can defend the country better than the government,

It can't. Govt is required, to organize and MANDATE the things necessary for defense.

 

[007]

Government is necessary for some things, but should do as little as possible, and should confine itself to important functions that private persons or groups CANNOT DO AT ALL. Examples include National Defense, smoothing the course of interstate commerce with minimal interference in that commerce, conducting foreign relations, setting national standards for money, weights, and measures, dispassionately pursuing and prosecuting criminal behavior, etc.

Occasional events like wars might cause govt departments designed to deal with them, to grow to a size appropriate to do so. But afterward govt must reduce back to its smaller size.

If you feel that government can do something better than private people or groups can do it, that's insufficient reason to grant govt authority to do it. If private people can do it at all, it must be denied to govt unequivocally.

The reason for these restrictions, is that:
(a) Government cannot do anything well, due in part to the fact that no one can compete with it, and will always be rife with sloth and inefficiency;
(b) Government's only ability is to restrict and punish its citizens. This is activity extremely vulnerable to abuse, and capable of damaging and destroying lives by the millions if not carefully watched and restrained.
(c) History grimly shows that when government is allowed more authority than necessary, the imperfect humans it's made of begin to abuse that power, virtually every time. And with time, that abuse only increases, often rising to disastrous levels.

For these reasons, the powers given to government must be carefull spelled out and restricted, with those it restricts retaining full power to change or abolish it.

If the private sector can defend the country better than the government, why have a government run defense department and all else that relates to our national security?

We don't. The military takes care of itself. The only thing they need the government for is funding.

But the military is also one of the most bloated, wasteful entities we have. When we pay $75 for a hammer and $150 for a toilet seat, that is just indicative to anything funded by our government, and $600 MILLION DOLLARS and 3 1/2 years WASTED on a completely fucked up website is just the latest in examples of how screwed up our government is.

 

[OnePercenter]

A smaller government is less competition for the rich. Look at who backs the Kochbaggers.

 

[Jackson]

Government is necessary for some things, but should do as little as possible, and should confine itself to important functions that private persons or groups CANNOT DO AT ALL. Examples include National Defense, smoothing the course of interstate commerce with minimal interference in that commerce, conducting foreign relations, setting national standards for money, weights, and measures, dispassionately pursuing and prosecuting criminal behavior, etc.

Occasional events like wars might cause govt departments designed to deal with them, to grow to a size appropriate to do so. But afterward govt must reduce back to its smaller size.

If you feel that government can do something better than private people or groups can do it, that's insufficient reason to grant govt authority to do it. If private people can do it at all, it must be denied to govt unequivocally.

The reason for these restrictions, is that:
(a) Government cannot do anything well, due in part to the fact that no one can compete with it, and will always be rife with sloth and inefficiency;
(b) Government's only ability is to restrict and punish its citizens. This is activity extremely vulnerable to abuse, and capable of damaging and destroying lives by the millions if not carefully watched and restrained.
(c) History grimly shows that when government is allowed more authority than necessary, the imperfect humans it's made of begin to abuse that power, virtually every time. And with time, that abuse only increases, often rising to disastrous levels.

For these reasons, the powers given to government must be carefull spelled out and restricted, with those it restricts retaining full power to change or abolish it.

Let me change one statement just a bit..
"Government cannot do anything well enough, that it can stand without competition, and will always be rife with sloth and inefficiency;"


We have seen example after example where a government agency has squandered funds, had gross mismanagement, sloppy work, harassment in the workplace and so many other complaints that are not commonplace in private businesses or to the degree to which we see in government agencies. Even Inspector Generals are needed to watch over these agencies and are sometimes suspect.

We need agencies to watch over the agencies. That should tell you something is wrong.

 

[OnePercenter]

Government is necessary for some things, but should do as little as possible, and should confine itself to important functions that private persons or groups CANNOT DO AT ALL. Examples include National Defense, smoothing the course of interstate commerce with minimal interference in that commerce, conducting foreign relations, setting national standards for money, weights, and measures, dispassionately pursuing and prosecuting criminal behavior, etc.

Occasional events like wars might cause govt departments designed to deal with them, to grow to a size appropriate to do so. But afterward govt must reduce back to its smaller size.

If you feel that government can do something better than private people or groups can do it, that's insufficient reason to grant govt authority to do it. If private people can do it at all, it must be denied to govt unequivocally.

The reason for these restrictions, is that:
(a) Government cannot do anything well, due in part to the fact that no one can compete with it, and will always be rife with sloth and inefficiency;
(b) Government's only ability is to restrict and punish its citizens. This is activity extremely vulnerable to abuse, and capable of damaging and destroying lives by the millions if not carefully watched and restrained.
(c) History grimly shows that when government is allowed more authority than necessary, the imperfect humans it's made of begin to abuse that power, virtually every time. And with time, that abuse only increases, often rising to disastrous levels.

For these reasons, the powers given to government must be carefull spelled out and restricted, with those it restricts retaining full power to change or abolish it.

Let me change one statement just a bit..
"Government cannot do anything well enough, that it can stand without competition, and will always be rife with sloth and inefficiency;"


We have seen example after example where a government agency has squandered funds, had gross mismanagement, sloppy work, harassment in the workplace and so many other complaints that are not commonplace in private businesses or to the degree to which we see in government agencies. Even Inspector Generals are needed to watch over these agencies and are sometimes suspect.

We need agencies to watch over the agencies. That should tell you something is wrong.

Sounds like Halliburton.

 

[Little-Acorn]

But the military is also one of the most bloated, wasteful entities we have. When we pay $75 for a hammer and $150 for a toilet seat, that is just indicative to anything funded by our government, and $600 MILLION DOLLARS and 3 1/2 years WASTED on a completely fucked up website is just the latest in examples of how screwed up our government is.

There is no shortage of examples to demonstrate Reason (a) above.

 

[Katzndogz]

The problem is equality. All things being equal, if the government can defend the nation better than private companies or individuals, then the government should be able to tell you what to have for dinner too.

 

[rightwinger]

Government needs to do what needs doing. Some things government does more efficiently and effectively than individuals can. That is why we formed governments.

Why try to arbitrarily restrict the size of government?

Let the voters decide what size government they want

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If you feel that government can do something better than private people or groups can do it, that's insufficient reason to grant govt authority to do it. If private people can do it at all, it must be denied to govt unequivocally.

Nonsense.

History has demonstrated that a pragmatic blend of public and private sectors is best, with such examples as addressing the Great Depression, World War II, and the manned space/moon program.

Indeed, during the last 20 years, with regard to the fad to ‘privatize’ certain public sector activities, taxpayers have seen little if any in the way savings with no improvement in the quality of public service, as indeed there are some things just best left to government to address.

But to adhere blindly to dogma – left or right – that only government or only the private sector is best-suited to address a given issue, as the OP advocates, is both naïve and counter-productive.

Last, if a citizen believes his government has acted in a manner that compromises his civil liberties, or that exceeds the bounds afford it by the Constitution, he is always at liberty to file suit in Federal court to seek relief.

 

[bripat9643]

If the private sector can defend the country better than the government,

It can't. Govt is required, to organize and MANDATE the things necessary for defense.

Actually, I think it can. Read what Hans Hermann Hoppe has to say about "private law societies."

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[eagle1462010]

Annenberg Classroom - Article I Section 8

Section 8 - The Text
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; —And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

 

[007]

A smaller government is less competition for the rich. Look at who backs the Kochbaggers.

And your messiah's lord and master, Sorosbagger.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Government is necessary for some things, but should do as little as possible, and should confine itself to important functions that private persons or groups CANNOT DO AT ALL. Examples include National Defense, smoothing the course of interstate commerce with minimal interference in that commerce, conducting foreign relations, setting national standards for money, weights, and measures, dispassionately pursuing and prosecuting criminal behavior, etc.

Occasional events like wars might cause govt departments designed to deal with them, to grow to a size appropriate to do so. But afterward govt must reduce back to its smaller size.

If you feel that government can do something better than private people or groups can do it, that's insufficient reason to grant govt authority to do it. If private people can do it at all, it must be denied to govt unequivocally.

The reason for these restrictions, is that:
(a) Government cannot do anything well, due in part to the fact that no one can compete with it, and will always be rife with sloth and inefficiency;
(b) Government's only ability is to restrict and punish its citizens. This is activity extremely vulnerable to abuse, and capable of damaging and destroying lives by the millions if not carefully watched and restrained.
(c) History grimly shows that when government is allowed more authority than necessary, the imperfect humans it's made of begin to abuse that power, virtually every time. And with time, that abuse only increases, often rising to disastrous levels.

For these reasons, the powers given to government must be carefull spelled out and restricted, with those it restricts retaining full power to change or abolish it.

Government needs to do what needs doing.

No, the people need to do what needs doing.

See the difference?

Government's only ability, is to punish and restrict its people.

Some things government does more efficiently and effectively than individuals can.

Didn't even read the OP, did we?

That is why we formed governments.

Not even close.

"Men are endowed ... with certain unalienable rights... to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men"
-Declaration of Independence

Get it? The reason we formed governments, is to protect our basic rights. Not to "give" us health care to make sure our toilets are the right size.

 

[bripat9643]

A smaller government is less competition for the rich. Look at who backs the Kochbaggers.

I just love the way you equate organized plunder with "competition." Apparently you believe a mugging is a "competition" between the perp and his victim.

 

[asaratis]

Government needs to do what needs doing.

Not necessarily. Government should do only what is necessary to protect the citizens within its realm of authority from harm and wrong doing and to promote improvements in the way of life therein.

Some things government does more efficiently and effectively than individuals can. That is why we formed governments.

Some, not many and certainly not all. Providing and maintaining armed protection against criminals and enemies, building and maintaining or regulating roadways, drainage, water supply, sewerage, garbage collection and disposal, disposal of human bodies, food supplies and certain parts of commerce and legal rights among the people are essential parts of the legitimate domain of government.

Governments should fund and run their military forces, under the command of the head of that government or elected officials such as the local sheriff. Government should fund and control the building and maintaining of roadways, but certainly should NOT get into buying the machinery and directly supervising the skilled labor that is required to design and actually build the roads and bridges. (God forbid that the US government EVER gets into the construction...save for the Army Engineers.)

Why try to arbitrarily restrict the size of government?

Let the voters decide what size government they want

If not limited in size, the government would grow exponentially until there are not enough taxpayers to support it. Our forefathers tried to limit the size of our federal staff by limiting states to two senators and a number of representatives based upon population. That worked until the congressmen started demanding large staffs of support help to run their offices and do all the leg work. I suspect this same type of government growth occurs at all levels except for the local garden clubs.

Then we create unnecessary departments of the government (such as the Department of Education) and fill their ranks with people who can't be fired for nonperformance, requiring more employees to do the work of those inefficient, lazy leeches. So now it takes six workers to do the actual work of one...A supervisor, a safety officer, a truck driver, a tool carrier, a water boy and ONE ditch digger.

FUCK BIG GOVERNMENT! All it does is support scabs on the ass of humanity!

 

[bripat9643]

If you feel that government can do something better than private people or groups can do it, that's insufficient reason to grant govt authority to do it. If private people can do it at all, it must be denied to govt unequivocally.

Nonsense.

History has demonstrated that a pragmatic blend of public and private sectors is best, with such examples as addressing the Great Depression, World War II, and the manned space/moon program.

It has demonstrated no such thing. Nazi Germany and fascist Italy were a blends of public and private sectors, so how does WW II show that such an arrangement is "best?" If anything, it shows such an arrangement is extremely dangerous.

Indeed, during the last 20 years, with regard to the fad to ‘privatize’ certain public sector activities, taxpayers have seen little if any in the way savings with no improvement in the quality of public service, as indeed there are some things just best left to government to address.

Another big fat lie. I just watched an episode of Stossil where they interviewed public officials who were lauding the success of their privatization programs.

But to adhere blindly to dogma – left or right – that only government or only the private sector is best-suited to address a given issue, as the OP advocates, is both naïve and counter-productive.

The dogma is in believing that government is good at anything other than extracting money from Richard Roe to buy the vote of Joe Blow.

Last, if a citizen believes his government has acted in a manner that compromises his civil liberties, or that exceeds the bounds afford it by the Constitution, he is always at liberty to file suit in Federal court to seek relief.

ROFL! How many tens of thousands of citizens have done that to little effect? it takes an astounding gullibility to believe that in any dispute between government and a citizen that an arm of the government will rule in the citizen's favor. Such things occasionally happen, but when they do they are viewed as some kind of miracle.

 

[OnePercenter]

A smaller government is less competition for the rich. Look at who backs the Kochbaggers.

I just love the way you equate organized plunder with "competition." Apparently you believe a mugging is a "competition" between the perp and his victim.

So the Republicans weren't going to pass ACA as written if Obama OK'd the Koch pipeline and reduced environmental regulations?