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

[bripat9643]

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

Rich people got that way because, by and large, they built businesses that produce goods and services that people WANT. Whereas government becomes rich by taxing the people who actually produce value in society. Which one sounds more "compassionate" to you?

All of which wouldn't have been possible without the government.

Sure it would. Name one thing government provides that business couldn't provide on its own.

 

[Foxfyre]

That's totally bullshit.

No government. No security.

Simple.

My comments were meant for those able to read and comprehend a point made Sallow. Others are welcome to ignore them.

They were wrong.

So I made a correction.

No big society lasts without a functional government.

Nor did I make a case that it did. You again are presuming I said something I did not say. But again, if you are not able to read and comprehend them, you are welcome to ignore my remarks.

 

[Sallow]

You aren't answering the question, you are just asking another.

Come on, I know you can give a better answer than that.

You kinda of just answered your question by not answering mine.

Government is necessary to provide stability so that all other functions of society can take place. Like commerce.

Generally commerce doesn't happen without stability and security.

Who funds the government?

Depends.

What sort of government are we talking about?

 

[Iceman]

You kinda of just answered your question by not answering mine.

Government is necessary to provide stability so that all other functions of society can take place. Like commerce.

Generally commerce doesn't happen without stability and security.

Who funds the government?

Depends.

What sort of government are we talking about?

Well, let's keep it domestic, the United States Government.

 

[Sallow]

My comments were meant for those able to read and comprehend a point made Sallow. Others are welcome to ignore them.

They were wrong.

So I made a correction.

No big society lasts without a functional government.

Nor did I make a case that it did. You again are presuming I said something I did not say. But again, if you are not able to read and comprehend them, you are welcome to ignore my remarks.

Sure you did.

Baloney. Good government has always FOLLOWED commerce and industry, not the other way around

What commerce and industry was Rome following?

Commerce and industry generally starts AFTER a government is established. At least on a major scale.

Otherwise? It doesn't last.

 

[Sallow]

Who funds the government?

Depends.

What sort of government are we talking about?

Well, let's keep it domestic, the United States Government.

The US government has a symbiotic relationship with commerce. In that..in many cases they fund each other.

 

[dblack]

Depends.

What sort of government are we talking about?

Well, let's keep it domestic, the United States Government.

The US government has a symbiotic relationship with commerce. In that..in many cases they fund each other.

How fucked up is that???

 

[Iceman]

Depends.

What sort of government are we talking about?

Well, let's keep it domestic, the United States Government.

The US government has a symbiotic relationship with commerce. In that..in many cases they fund each other.

How does the US Government fund commerce? What commerce? All commerce?

 

[Foxfyre]

They were wrong.

So I made a correction.

No big society lasts without a functional government.

Nor did I make a case that it did. You again are presuming I said something I did not say. But again, if you are not able to read and comprehend them, you are welcome to ignore my remarks.

Sure you did.

Baloney. Good government has always FOLLOWED commerce and industry, not the other way around

What commerce and industry was Rome following?

Commerce and industry generally starts AFTER a government is established. At least on a major scale.

Otherwise? It doesn't last.

Where did I use a qualifer of 'a major scale?' I gave you an excellent and quite realistic illustration of how a good government comes about. The U.S. government did not create the commerce and industry that was here in 1776. It was already here and thriving among the various colonies when they formed the first U.S. rudimentary government, one that was disbanded and recreated via the Constitution later on. The people themselves chose the sort of government they wanted so that the various colonies could function as one nation. It had zero to do with creating commerce and industry and precious little to do with what infrastructure existed.

Nor did King George create commerce and industry here in America. He allowed some brave souls to come here and settle, but he provided no infrastructure, not even any provisions for them initially. It was only after the settlements began to thrive and commerce and industry had sprung up that he took any interest in governing those people. And that was not to serve them but to see what could be mined from the new society in taxes.

Rome didn't make commerce and industry possible in the Roman Empire nor did any other government that existed before the Romans started taking control of the area. It was already there and thriving when the Romans took over.

To say that good government follow commerce and industry is not at all saying that government does not or should not exist.

Before state and county governments formed across the countrie, and people were expanding west, almost all of the towns that sprang did so without benefit of any form of government or government created infrastructure. Roads to connect the towns were built later, first following the wagon ruts left by the first settlers, and then the stagecoach lines.

Good government follows commerce and industry. It does not precede it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Rich people got that way because, by and large, they built businesses that produce goods and services that people WANT. Whereas government becomes rich by taxing the people who actually produce value in society. Which one sounds more "compassionate" to you?

All of which wouldn't have been possible without the government.

Baloney. Good government has always FOLLOWED commerce and industry, not the other way around. You start out with a few farms or ranches and eventually somebody sees the market and puts in a small local grocery or hardware or farm implement store so folks don't have to drive so far for a few nails or a loaf of bread. And then another store moves in to offer blacksmith or repair services. Another will fix shoes or dry clean clothes or offer plumbing and electrical services. Eventually it makes sense to hire a law enforcement person to help protect the various properties from the very occasional thief or vandal. Then the people band together to form a volunteer fire department to lower everybody's fire insurance premiums. And to protect the ground water, they elect to have s shared water system and eventually a sewer system. And eventually it makes sense to incorporate the village and hire somebody to oversee and regulate all the shared services. Sooner or later roads will be paved and extended and linked to larger transportation routes and other amenities will be added, all authorized by bonds voted by the citizens.

But the roads, the infrastructure, the shared services are all determined to be necessary by the people who will be payng for them and it all is created because the need already exists. The Founders did not build a post road to nowhere on the theory somebody might need that at some time. They built them to serve the people where they already were.

That is what 'promote the general welfare' meant to the Founding Fathers whether at the local, country, state, or federal level--government services that meet an existing need and cannot be accomplished as efficiently and effectively by the private sector. Otherwise it is the duty of government to free up the private sector to thrive and flourish as it chooses to do.

The United States has always been a blend of private and public sectors, each equally dependent upon the other.

It’s incorrect to perceive one as ‘superior’ to the other, or to maintain government exists as some sort of a ‘hindrance’ to commerce, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[Foxfyre]

All of which wouldn't have been possible without the government.

Baloney. Good government has always FOLLOWED commerce and industry, not the other way around. You start out with a few farms or ranches and eventually somebody sees the market and puts in a small local grocery or hardware or farm implement store so folks don't have to drive so far for a few nails or a loaf of bread. And then another store moves in to offer blacksmith or repair services. Another will fix shoes or dry clean clothes or offer plumbing and electrical services. Eventually it makes sense to hire a law enforcement person to help protect the various properties from the very occasional thief or vandal. Then the people band together to form a volunteer fire department to lower everybody's fire insurance premiums. And to protect the ground water, they elect to have s shared water system and eventually a sewer system. And eventually it makes sense to incorporate the village and hire somebody to oversee and regulate all the shared services. Sooner or later roads will be paved and extended and linked to larger transportation routes and other amenities will be added, all authorized by bonds voted by the citizens.

But the roads, the infrastructure, the shared services are all determined to be necessary by the people who will be payng for them and it all is created because the need already exists. The Founders did not build a post road to nowhere on the theory somebody might need that at some time. They built them to serve the people where they already were.

That is what 'promote the general welfare' meant to the Founding Fathers whether at the local, country, state, or federal level--government services that meet an existing need and cannot be accomplished as efficiently and effectively by the private sector. Otherwise it is the duty of government to free up the private sector to thrive and flourish as it chooses to do.

The United States has always been a blend of private and public sectors, each equally dependent upon the other.

It’s incorrect to perceive one as ‘superior’ to the other, or to maintain government exists as some sort of a ‘hindrance’ to commerce, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

No, the United States nor the areas that have been settled have not been a blend of private and public sectors. The people themselves formed their local governments where they went AFTER they had accumulated in sufficient numbers and had commerce and industry up and running so that they NEEDED some kind of central government organization. The state governments were organized in the same way for the same reasons. Even the federal government has been developed in exactly that same way until it became its own entity and exists to serve and perpetuate itself.

The difference between you and me is that you probably were never even taught the concept of a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. You see government as being something separate and distinctly different from the people. Bad government in fact is separate from and distinctly different from the people. Good government is not and good government follows commerce and industry.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Name a country started totally as a result of big business.

South Africa.

Colonies are the result of big government.

Business may compel a government to create them, but bottom line?

They aren't the one doing the dirty work.

Ever here of DeBeers? If there were no diamonds in Africa do you really think Britain would have spent more time there than they did France?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

All of which wouldn't have been possible without the government.

Baloney. Good government has always FOLLOWED commerce and industry, not the other way around. You start out with a few farms or ranches and eventually somebody sees the market and puts in a small local grocery or hardware or farm implement store so folks don't have to drive so far for a few nails or a loaf of bread. And then another store moves in to offer blacksmith or repair services. Another will fix shoes or dry clean clothes or offer plumbing and electrical services. Eventually it makes sense to hire a law enforcement person to help protect the various properties from the very occasional thief or vandal. Then the people band together to form a volunteer fire department to lower everybody's fire insurance premiums. And to protect the ground water, they elect to have s shared water system and eventually a sewer system. And eventually it makes sense to incorporate the village and hire somebody to oversee and regulate all the shared services. Sooner or later roads will be paved and extended and linked to larger transportation routes and other amenities will be added, all authorized by bonds voted by the citizens.

But the roads, the infrastructure, the shared services are all determined to be necessary by the people who will be payng for them and it all is created because the need already exists. The Founders did not build a post road to nowhere on the theory somebody might need that at some time. They built them to serve the people where they already were.

That is what 'promote the general welfare' meant to the Founding Fathers whether at the local, country, state, or federal level--government services that meet an existing need and cannot be accomplished as efficiently and effectively by the private sector. Otherwise it is the duty of government to free up the private sector to thrive and flourish as it chooses to do.

The United States has always been a blend of private and public sectors, each equally dependent upon the other.

It’s incorrect to perceive one as ‘superior’ to the other, or to maintain government exists as some sort of a ‘hindrance’ to commerce, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

The United States has never been a product of your delusions. For one thing, it existed before you were born, so even if your delusions were actually able to control reality you would have some 'splainin to do.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

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?

It's our nation's role, as well as in it's people's best interest, to uphold and defend the constitution and it's citizens. Can you find any country that doesn't require a military to protect it from invasion of a hostile force? It's the one basic need that our Founders can agree upon as being an essential part of our Federal government to perform.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

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

A larger more powerful government tends to be corrupt within its own power to subject it's will over the people, rather than a smaller form of government which is a servant of and must answer to the will of the people.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Name a country started totally as a result of big business.

You aren't answering the question, you are just asking another.

Come on, I know you can give a better answer than that.

You kinda of just answered your question by not answering mine.

Government is necessary to provide stability so that all other functions of society can take place. Like commerce.

Generally commerce doesn't happen without stability and security.

Implying that he answered your question by not answering it is a contradiction. And a cop out.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

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.

Like the government provision of a United States Postal Service? I honestly can't find any government institution or program that can be deemed more fiscally efficient than the private sector. Just look to how the state runs the MVA and humor me again about provide a better quality service.

 

[bripat9643]

Depends.

What sort of government are we talking about?

Well, let's keep it domestic, the United States Government.

The US government has a symbiotic relationship with commerce. In that..in many cases they fund each other.

Utter horseshit. Business funds government.

 

[FA_Q2]

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

The really sad part is that you actually believe that tripe.

The reality is that the more powerful the government the more powerful the rich. They are the ones that exercise leverage and influence in government. Right there you are complaining about the power of a particular rich person without realize that those gain such power precisely because the government protects them, their money, their influence and above all – their bottom line from competition. There is no better way for the rich to ensure that they never fall from that perch (or others don’t over crowd it) than a big government making regulations and mandates that protect their influence.

It is really disheartening that so many do not understand this basic concept. They seem to think that giving the government ever greater control will somehow limit the power of the mega corps and rich when, in fact, it was the government that imparted them with that power to begin with.

 

[FA_Q2]

Your Alzheimer's is effecting your posts. Again.

Your liberalism is affecting your posts, again.

I'm a registered Republican, but I'm pro middle class.

What you are registered is irrelevant. What you are is spelled out in your posts all over this form and I feel perfectly safe in noting that you are not a republican by a LOOONG stretch of the imagination.