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

[rightwinger]

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

Commerce is not possible without government

It is government that builds the roads, builds the bridges, dredges the harbors that makes commerce possible. Our military also keeps the peace that keeps the money flowing

Commerce was going strong before roads and harbors came into play. The Silk Road was nothing more than trails and sea routes repeatedly used by tradesmen to move goods between countries. There was no pavement and no dredged harbors.

Yes, and they had the good fortune of having pirates and gangs of thieves helping them on the way. Until they demanded that governments help them

 

[bripat9643]

We the people.....

Great isn't it?

Incorrect.


My understanding is that you are a TAX CONSUMER, A PARASITE, A MOOCHER

someone who believes that tax payers have a duty to feed and insure you.

.

Very true

That is what we the people want. We do not want our people starving in the streets. We don't want people dying for lack of medical care. Somehow, when we look at the United States, we want to be the good guys. We want to take care of our less fortunate

Who's stopping you from taking care of them?

 

[bripat9643]

Commerce is not possible without government

It is government that builds the roads, builds the bridges, dredges the harbors that makes commerce possible. Our military also keeps the peace that keeps the money flowing

Commerce was going strong before roads and harbors came into play. The Silk Road was nothing more than trails and sea routes repeatedly used by tradesmen to move goods between countries. There was no pavement and no dredged harbors.

Yes, and they had the good fortune of having pirates and gangs of thieves helping them on the way. Until they demanded that governments help them

You're making things up again. They never demanded any such thing. I don't think any government ever provided security for caravans on the silk road.

 

[Iceman]

Commerce is not possible without government

It is government that builds the roads, builds the bridges, dredges the harbors that makes commerce possible. Our military also keeps the peace that keeps the money flowing

Who funds the building of the roads, building of the bridges, dredging of the harbors that makes commerce possible? Also, who funds the military?

We the people.....

Great isn't it?

How do people get the money?

What people?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Commerce is not possible without government

It is government that builds the roads, builds the bridges, dredges the harbors that makes commerce possible. Our military also keeps the peace that keeps the money flowing

So there was no commerce before government?

I think you're wrong.

Even simple societies needed government to protect commerce. All the way back to stopping thieves from stealing your goods, stopping raiders and opening up trade with neighboring tribes

That was hilarious.

Tell me something, genius, if trade cannot exist without government how do you explain the drug trade?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Even simple societies needed government to protect commerce. All the way back to stopping thieves from stealing your goods, stopping raiders and opening up trade with neighboring tribes

The fact is trade existed long before government. Farmers, craftsmen and artisans brought their goods to market before the state ever existed.

I don't think it would be much fun doing commerce without a government protecting property rights. Just sayin'.

I don't think you have actually looked at the real world and seen that you are wrong. For one thing, the government is not protecting property rights in any way, shape, or form.

You also missed the glaring exception to your argument, the international drug trade, which has existed outside government protection for years, yet has managed to deliver a better quality product, at a lower price, than when government first decided to eliminate it.

Then we have the wonderful example that came out this year of government forcing big business to make it easier for them to spy on people. Now, despite the fact that government doesn't want companies to stop helping them, even going so far as to file briefs that companies cannot read in defensing its positions, tech companies are being forced to fight back because We the People are rising up and demanding that they change. The companies, since they depend on their customers, not force, to make money, have to find a way to kick the government out.

The government is not the only way to protect property rights. It is the best way I can think of, but it has to be built around the premise of protecting rights, not providing a service. Once the government starts providing services it steps away from the core principle of protecting rights and moves into protecting itself. A prime example fo that will be seen over the next 5 years as Disney once again steps up and lobbies for an extension of the Mickey Mouse law.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The fact is trade existed long before government. Farmers, craftsmen and artisans brought their goods to market before the state ever existed.

I don't think it would be much fun doing commerce without a government protecting property rights. Just sayin'.

Exactly

You could bring your goods to market, but nobody would protect you once yo got there
Government also created this thing called money which made commerce possible

Which is why we no longer have alcohol in the US, and drugs are all but eliminated.

Wait...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Regulation of commerce is in the Constitution as part of the enumerated powers. Which is why it gave the Senate the lead role in negotiating trade with Foreign countries. It is specifically why they gave Senators a longer term of service.

They were also specific on State to State Intrastate Commerce as the Gov't was to handle Trade Disputes between states.

So how have the Leaders in Washington done. What is their score on this issue........................

If you look at our current Trade Imbalances and the jobs leaving the country, they have FAILED MISERABLY..........Of course they blame others. That's just what they do, but they changed how we do business by assigning a Foreign entity known as the WTO to decide what's best for us in the advent of Free Trade.

Why would we allow a foreign org, even though we are a part decide what is best for America...............

They have done such a service for us haven't they. As China places Tariffs and bans on our goods and services while we do not do they same for them. I remember a story a while back as our Gov't complained to China about these problems, and China simply said go cry to the WTO.

Not really. The only power Congress has to regulate commerce is with foreign countries, among the states, and with the Indian tribes. Everything else is outside its purview, which is why the individual mandate was struck down as being beyond the scope of the commerce clause.

The rest of your post is conspiracy drivel, and not worth responding to.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Exactly

You could bring your goods to market, but nobody would protect you once yo got there
Government also created this thing called money which made commerce possible

What an idiot. Government didn't create money. and markets existed before government, so both your claims are wrong. Just about everything you believe about government is wrong. That's what makes you a liberal.

Monetary systems were created by governments. Beyond that all you had was barter

Monetary systems were created by people and date back at least 12,000 years. The earliest civilization is less than half that old. Want to tell me, again, how government invented money?

 

[Contumacious]

We the people.....

Great isn't it?

Incorrect.


My understanding is that you are a TAX CONSUMER, A PARASITE, A MOOCHER

someone who believes that tax payers have a duty to feed and insure you.

.

Very true

That is what we the people want. We do not want our people starving in the streets. We don't want people dying for lack of medical care. Somehow, when we look at the United States, we want to be the good guys. We want to take care of our less fortunate

Actually what you meant to say is that you and your ilk , are lazy ass motherfuckers who vote early and often and are willing to manipulate the system into feeding and insuring you.

.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I don't think it would be much fun doing commerce without a government protecting property rights. Just sayin'.

Government is currently the #1 threat to our property rights. Before government, society evolved mechanisms for resolving disputes and protecting property. People live in villages together for thousands of years before the state ever existed.

Villages had governments. They still do and it is mostly the local governments that will protect your property rights.

Local governments don't care about your property rights.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Commerce is not possible without government

It is government that builds the roads, builds the bridges, dredges the harbors that makes commerce possible. Our military also keeps the peace that keeps the money flowing

Commerce was going strong before roads and harbors came into play. The Silk Road was nothing more than trails and sea routes repeatedly used by tradesmen to move goods between countries. There was no pavement and no dredged harbors.

Yes, and they had the good fortune of having pirates and gangs of thieves helping them on the way. Until they demanded that governments help them

I found myself wondering why you are contradicting yourself, then I realized you are just stupid, and probably think you aren't.

 

[Foxfyre]

There was a time, within living memory, when the achievements of others were not only admired but were often taken as an inspiration for imitation of the same qualities that had served these achievers well, even if we were not in the same field of endeavor and were not expecting to achieve on the same scale. . . .

. . . .Somewhere along the way all that changed. . . .

. . . . To cheering audiences, Professor Warren says, "there is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You build a factory out there, good for you, but I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers that the rest of us paid to educate."

Do the people who cheer this kind of talk bother to stop and think through what she is saying? Or is heady rhetoric enough for them?

People who run businesses are benefitting from things paid for by others? Since when are people in business, or high-income earners in general, exempt from paying taxes like everybody else? . . . .
--Thomas Sowell
Thomas Sowell: Trashing Achievements

Who gave of their time, talent, and personal wealth and who risked all that they owned, all that they held dear, and their very lives to create the first U.S. government? Who funds the government now? From what source did the funds come to lay out and pave the roads and build the schools that educate us if not from the innovation, risks taken, labor, and productivity of the property owners, business owners, and the people who have jobs and earnings because the business owners exist?

Commerce and industry could not exist if government did not make it possible? That has to be one of the most absurd concepts the collectivists among us have put forth yet.

But now government exists to perpetuate itself and is slowly but surely sucking the lifeblood from that very same commerce and industry that made the government possible. It is a classic example of creating a monster that now threatens to consume us alll.

And to our collectivist friends, no, that is NOT saying that we should do away with government. It is saying we need to return to a government that exists to provide what the people cannot realistically or practically do for themselves rather than a government that expects the people to serve it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Personally, I like the way he assumed that 1) "the rich" need competition they don't already have, and 2) that it's GOVERNMENT'S job to compete with anyone.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

The smallest and least powerful government on the planet has more power than the richest corporation.

Didn't the oil industry bring the US to it's knees with the fake gasoline shortage in the late 70's?

I honestly can't tell if leftists just like sounding stupid, or if they really believe they can create reality by repeating things often enough.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Yes, and they had the good fortune of having pirates and gangs of thieves helping them on the way. Until they demanded that governments help them

I found myself wondering why you are contradicting yourself, then I realized you are just stupid, and probably think you aren't.

"Often in error, never in doubt."

 

[Cecilie1200]

The smallest and least powerful government on the planet has more power than the richest corporation.

Didn't the oil industry bring the US to it's knees with the fake gasoline shortage in the late 70's?

It was fake, but the government caused it, not the oil companies. That's why it was so easy for Reagan to end it. All he had to do was get rid of the price controls on domestic production and all the government quotas on who got how much gas. Presto-chango, no more energy crisis.

And let us not forget that it was NOT "the oil industry" - aka private oil companies - who started it. It was OPEC, otherwise known as "government-controlled oil", just the way leftists would like things to be here.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Didn't the oil industry bring the US to it's knees with the fake gasoline shortage in the late 70's?

Actually, it was the collapse of the Keynesian economic system that brought the US to it's knees. Namely stagflation. Carter was responsible for that.

Profiteering is the correct term. My Uncle was a suit at Standard oil dba Chevron at the time. Stocks of gasoline were falsified by hiding stock in pipelines.

Oh, WELL, if your uncle said so, then we'll just discard the memories of everyone ELSE who lived through it and watched the news at the time, AND the historians discussing it since then. Your uncle is all the source of wisdom and knowledge that we need, right?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Government provides services with low overhead and on a not for profit basis

The people get as much or as little government as they want. Your problem is that most of We The People do not agree with your concepts of limited government

Government is almost always LESS efficient than the private sector. "Low overhead"? You've got to be kidding me. Chicago Metro train conductors get paid 6 figure salaries with benefits, more than 3 times the market value for those wages in the private sector.
News and Investigations Metra's Overtime Express

Privatization means higher quality and lower overhead, because competition and the profit motive promote growth.
Reason Foundation - Annual Privatization Report 2013

Yeah, that Obamacare website sure was done cheaply and efficiently, wasn't it?

Did we not just see an example of how many non-essential, dead-weight workers our government has and can do without during the shutdown?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yeah, that Obamacare website sure was done cheaply and efficiently, wasn't it?

Government also put a man on the moon

Nasty bastards

Since there were no private moonshots, there's nothing to compare it with, is there?

Oh, so government had to be in control of space travel, because they were the only ones who could have done it? Hmmm.

"At least a dozen private companies have created their own Suborbital Reusable Vehicles (SRVs)—private and reusable space ships that can carry humans or cargo into space—and are competing to haul cargo and people into space."

Read more: How The Private Sector Revolutionized The Space Race In A Few Short Years - Business Insider