The "I want small gov't" Hypocrisy - help me out here (1 Viewer)

[Koya]

As most on this board probably know, I don't fall neatly into the left or the right, though it end up leaning more left by our political system (aka: limited choices). As such, my quick explanation to people is I am a left leaning libertarian who, in an ideal world, would allow each of us as individuals and free citizens to do as we please, so long as what we do does no harm to others. A lot of grey areas here (i.e. I should be free to not wear a helmet while on a motorcycle, but not if that means you are going to have to pay my medical bills when I crash, I have to take responsibility for that, even if taking responsibility means I can't afford it and die - to be blunt and to give but one example).

One of my biggest pet peeves by being in this odd middle (left on some issues, right on others) is this BS we hear about big gov't vs. small govt and the Capital Punishment thread got me thinking.

These are legit questions and certainly folks from any political viewpoint can respond, but especially curious to those who consider themselves small government conservatives. This is not a thread to needle your viewpoint, but to legitimately understand what I see as either hypocrisy or at least a complete disconnect between a stated goal (small gov't) and desired policies (that would seem to be big govt). Some examples:

How do we have people who claim to be all for small gov't, but want that gov't to kill its citizens via the death penalty?

How can you be for small gov't, but want a (MUCH) bigger armed forces?

How can you be for a small gov't, but want that gov't to dictate that one language is "official"?

How can you be for small gov't, but ask that gov't to push one view of God / religion rather than just staying out of it totally?

How can you be for small gov't, but want to impose a specific set of morality on others, including for things that have no negative (or any real) effect on others, be it blue laws or laws against homosexual acts?

How can you be for small gov't, but insist on gov't sanctioned "marriage" to then be interwoven into our tax laws?

 

[Scoresman]

They don't really want small government.

 

[Koya]

They don't really want small government.

I hear you, and it's a valid viewpoint... which is why I am more asking those who consider themselves conservatives to answer so I can better understand their perspective. It makes no sense to me, but the mantra of "small gov't" is so much a part of the dialogue, from the Contract with America through the Tea Party, that I need to at least better understand how the two go together.

And, if indeed it's not "small gov't" but "different gov't" or even "gov't that abide by certain moral values / religious values" then I'd accept it a lot more than the seemingly disingenuous "small gov't" cries from those who espouse views that are in direct contradiction to that assertion.

 

[Parrothead]

As most on this board probably know, I don't fall neatly into the left or the right, though it end up leaning more left by our political system (aka: limited choices). As such, my quick explanation to people is I am a left leaning libertarian who, in an ideal world, would allow each of us as individuals and free citizens to do as we please, so long as what we do does no harm to others. A lot of grey areas here (i.e. I should be free to not wear a helmet while on a motorcycle, but not if that means you are going to have to pay my medical bills when I crash, I have to take responsibility for that, even if taking responsibility means I can't afford it and die - to be blunt and to give but one example).

One of my biggest pet peeves by being in this odd middle (left on some issues, right on others) is this BS we hear about big gov't vs. small govt and the Capital Punishment thread got me thinking.

These are legit questions and certainly folks from any political viewpoint can respond, but especially curious to those who consider themselves small government conservatives. This is not a thread to needle your viewpoint, but to legitimately understand what I see as either hypocrisy or at least a complete disconnect between a stated goal (small gov't) and desired policies (that would seem to be big govt). Some examples:

How do we have people who claim to be all for small gov't, but want that gov't to kill its citizens via the death penalty? against it

How can you be for small gov't, but want a (MUCH) bigger armed forces? I'm fine with cutting military spending

How can you be for a small gov't, but want that gov't to dictate that one language is "official"? don't care about official languages

How can you be for small gov't, but ask that gov't to push one view of God / religion rather than just staying out of it totally? athiest

How can you be for small gov't, but want to impose a specific set of morality on others, including for things that have no negative (or any real) effect on others, be it blue laws or laws against homosexual acts? gov't should stay out of people's business

How can you be for small gov't, but insist on gov't sanctioned "marriage" to then be interwoven into our tax laws? marriage should not be dictated by government

 

[BigSteelThrill]

They don't really want small government.

 

[LinusMarr]

As most on this board probably know, I don't fall neatly into the left or the right, though it end up leaning more left by our political system (aka: limited choices). As such, my quick explanation to people is I am a left leaning libertarian who, in an ideal world, would allow each of us as individuals and free citizens to do as we please, so long as what we do does no harm to others. A lot of grey areas here (i.e. I should be free to not wear a helmet while on a motorcycle, but not if that means you are going to have to pay my medical bills when I crash, I have to take responsibility for that, even if taking responsibility means I can't afford it and die - to be blunt and to give but one example).

One of my biggest pet peeves by being in this odd middle (left on some issues, right on others) is this BS we hear about big gov't vs. small govt and the Capital Punishment thread got me thinking.

These are legit questions and certainly folks from any political viewpoint can respond, but especially curious to those who consider themselves small government conservatives. This is not a thread to needle your viewpoint, but to legitimately understand what I see as either hypocrisy or at least a complete disconnect between a stated goal (small gov't) and desired policies (that would seem to be big govt). Some examples:

How do we have people who claim to be all for small gov't, but want that gov't to kill its citizens via the death penalty?

How can you be for small gov't, but want a (MUCH) bigger armed forces?

How can you be for a small gov't, but want that gov't to dictate that one language is "official"?

How can you be for small gov't, but ask that gov't to push one view of God / religion rather than just staying out of it totally?

How can you be for small gov't, but want to impose a specific set of morality on others, including for things that have no negative (or any real) effect on others, be it blue laws or laws against homosexual acts?

How can you be for small gov't, but insist on gov't sanctioned "marriage" to then be interwoven into our tax laws?

Oh i think you fall pretty neatly to the left, ace...

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

People are dumb, water is wet, etc.

 

[Rich Conway]

One of your examples doesn't appear to be a contradiction, at least to me. Specifically, the death penalty one doesn't seem to be any contradiction whatsoever, unless you're suggesting that those who advocate small government must necessarily advocate complete anarchy.

If one advocates for laws at all, then one must also advocate for consequences of breaking those laws. The form of consequence one advocates doesn't seem to fit into a small government/big government choice.

On a separate but related note, many who say they advocate "small government" are really mixing and matching that with "proper role of government". Once you look at it that way, none of these are necessarily contradictory.

 

[The General]

People want some parts of the government small just not the parts that they depend upon.

 

[Koya]

As most on this board probably know, I don't fall neatly into the left or the right, though it end up leaning more left by our political system (aka: limited choices). As such, my quick explanation to people is I am a left leaning libertarian who, in an ideal world, would allow each of us as individuals and free citizens to do as we please, so long as what we do does no harm to others. A lot of grey areas here (i.e. I should be free to not wear a helmet while on a motorcycle, but not if that means you are going to have to pay my medical bills when I crash, I have to take responsibility for that, even if taking responsibility means I can't afford it and die - to be blunt and to give but one example).

One of my biggest pet peeves by being in this odd middle (left on some issues, right on others) is this BS we hear about big gov't vs. small govt and the Capital Punishment thread got me thinking.

These are legit questions and certainly folks from any political viewpoint can respond, but especially curious to those who consider themselves small government conservatives. This is not a thread to needle your viewpoint, but to legitimately understand what I see as either hypocrisy or at least a complete disconnect between a stated goal (small gov't) and desired policies (that would seem to be big govt). Some examples:

How do we have people who claim to be all for small gov't, but want that gov't to kill its citizens via the death penalty?

How can you be for small gov't, but want a (MUCH) bigger armed forces?

How can you be for a small gov't, but want that gov't to dictate that one language is "official"?

How can you be for small gov't, but ask that gov't to push one view of God / religion rather than just staying out of it totally?

How can you be for small gov't, but want to impose a specific set of morality on others, including for things that have no negative (or any real) effect on others, be it blue laws or laws against homosexual acts?

How can you be for small gov't, but insist on gov't sanctioned "marriage" to then be interwoven into our tax laws?

Oh i think you fall pretty neatly to the left, ace...

Socially, yes. But rights are rights... and if you are a responsible citizen, not only should you be allowed to have firearms, but it is, imo, healthy for a society to have a well armed (IF they are educated in safety and use and show that responsibility) public.

Also, I am not for nearly as significant a redistribution of wealth as most dems I know... but I also recognize that there are decisions / investments that you need to make from a governing perspective, rather than an ideological one, that is in everyone's benefit (so, it might not feel "right" to tax me to pay for someone else to eat, or learn, but if in the end it not only helps that person, but is done so in a way that they do not become dependent on the gov't teet and don't end up doing more harm to society by being uneducated and unemployed, sick and/or go into crime, that's a smart business decision).

I happen to believe in a strong defense, though we likely spend way too much and in the wrong places, right now, to a large degree.

So, I am socially very liberal, fiscally in the middle (and wanting to lean conservative, but with the perspective listed above and also with the understanding that we do share some responsibility to help those who can not help themselves, regardless of how it benefits others) but when it comes to rights, regardless of what they are, freedoms of the individual, I am a hardened but realistic libertarian. Realistic in that I recognize that, especially in today's world, it is hard to do an action that has NO effect on others, so there's a lot of fine lines to implementing a libertarian viewpoint in modernity.

 

[Koya]

One of your examples doesn't appear to be a contradiction, at least to me. Specifically, the death penalty one doesn't seem to be any contradiction whatsoever, unless you're suggesting that those who advocate small government must necessarily advocate complete anarchy.

If one advocates for laws at all, then one must also advocate for consequences of breaking those laws. The form of consequence one advocates doesn't seem to fit into a small government/big government choice.

On a separate but related note, many who say they advocate "small government" are really mixing and matching that with "proper role of government". Once you look at it that way, none of these are necessarily contradictory.

Appreciate the response. To me, many who claim that we should have small / limited gov't also want that same gov't to be entrusted with the responsibility of killing its own citizens. How can you utterly not trust the gov't, but want it to be able to legally kill its citizens? To me that's crazy.

To your separate note, that might, in the end, be the solution here. But I am not the one going around and saying how Huckabee, for example, is a small gov't guy... or name any other of the right side of the aisle, Tea Party, small/limited gov't folks. So, until they stop self identifying with something that does not seem to be true, I think it's a legit point of discussion.

 

[Jayrod]

How do we have people who claim to be all for small gov't, but want that gov't to kill its citizens via the death penalty?

How can you be for small gov't, but want a (MUCH) bigger armed forces?

How can you be for a small gov't, but want that gov't to dictate that one language is "official"?

How can you be for small gov't, but ask that gov't to push one view of God / religion rather than just staying out of it totally?

How can you be for small gov't, but want to impose a specific set of morality on others, including for things that have no negative (or any real) effect on others, be it blue laws or laws against homosexual acts?

How can you be for small gov't, but insist on gov't sanctioned "marriage" to then be interwoven into our tax laws?

I think I may be pretty close to your huckleberry on this.

-The death penalty may be the only one on your list I'm staunchly for, but as long as we are enforcing laws and utilizing any form of punishment, capital punishment falls under enforcement of laws. I wouldn't recommend we stop imprisoning and fining people either. I think the nature and volume of the laws one supports makes someone big or small gov't, not the punishments they support.

-I don't want a much bigger armed forces and would like to see our military pulled back to within our borders MUCH more than it is currently.

-I support one official language simply for the sake of logistics. I think having to include multiple languages on all government documents and signs would be a big government thing, not small. I wouldn't deport any citizens for failing to learn English, but I also don't think we should be forced to accommodate them.

-I don't and would never ask for the government to push one religion.

-I don't think there should be laws on moral issues that don't harm others.

-I think the government should have no say in who is married and make no laws recognizing any such union. However, I think we are way too far midstream in the US to change to that horse.

 

[ArbyMelt]

I just want a government that can balance the budget. That would be a much smaller government.

 

[mr roboto]

Because people don't form a fully thought out political philosophy first, then neatly march down a list of issues and choose based on that philosophy. Laws don't get written based on a philosophy of government either, but based on constituents' wishes, special interests, polling data and a recency bias.

In summation, I think you are granting far too much foresight and linear reasoning to voters and lawmakers.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

A lot of people want the part of government that tells them what to do to be small, but the part of government that tells other people what to do to be big.

 

[Clifford]

They don't really want small government.

I hear you, and it's a valid viewpoint... which is why I am more asking those who consider themselves conservatives to answer so I can better understand their perspective. It makes no sense to me, but the mantra of "small gov't" is so much a part of the dialogue, from the Contract with America through the Tea Party, that I need to at least better understand how the two go together.

And, if indeed it's not "small gov't" but "different gov't" or even "gov't that abide by certain moral values / religious values" then I'd accept it a lot more than the seemingly disingenuous "small gov't" cries from those who espouse views that are in direct contradiction to that assertion.

When they say small government they are really only talking about defunding the parts of government they don't like. Typically these are entitlement programs, funding for the arts, and a few other things that vary depending on which group you are talking to.

 

[Koya]

How do we have people who claim to be all for small gov't, but want that gov't to kill its citizens via the death penalty?

How can you be for small gov't, but want a (MUCH) bigger armed forces?

How can you be for a small gov't, but want that gov't to dictate that one language is "official"?

How can you be for small gov't, but ask that gov't to push one view of God / religion rather than just staying out of it totally?

How can you be for small gov't, but want to impose a specific set of morality on others, including for things that have no negative (or any real) effect on others, be it blue laws or laws against homosexual acts?

How can you be for small gov't, but insist on gov't sanctioned "marriage" to then be interwoven into our tax laws?

I think I may be pretty close to your huckleberry on this.

-The death penalty may be the only one on your list I'm staunchly for, but as long as we are enforcing laws and utilizing any form of punishment, capital punishment falls under enforcement of laws. I wouldn't recommend we stop imprisoning and fining people either. I think the nature and volume of the laws one supports makes someone big or small gov't, not the punishments they support.

-I don't want a much bigger armed forces and would like to see our military pulled back to within our borders MUCH more than it is currently.

-I support one official language simply for the sake of logistics. I think having to include multiple languages on all government documents and signs would be a big government thing, not small. I wouldn't deport any citizens for failing to learn English, but I also don't think we should be forced to accommodate them.

-I don't and would never ask for the government to push one religion.

-I don't think there should be laws on moral issues that don't harm others.

-I think the government should have no say in who is married and make no laws recognizing any such union. However, I think we are way too far midstream in the US to change to that horse.

Very much appreciate the response. Would it be too much to suggest that you are the anomaly, or at least the more quiet voice as most self proclaimed "small gov't" folks seem to disagree with some of your fundamental assertions?

Even your rationale for a standard / gov't sanctioned language makes sense - I just think that can be accommodated in a manner that does not make an one language "official" - it strikes against freedom of speech imo.

 

[Rich Conway]

One of your examples doesn't appear to be a contradiction, at least to me. Specifically, the death penalty one doesn't seem to be any contradiction whatsoever, unless you're suggesting that those who advocate small government must necessarily advocate complete anarchy.

If one advocates for laws at all, then one must also advocate for consequences of breaking those laws. The form of consequence one advocates doesn't seem to fit into a small government/big government choice.

On a separate but related note, many who say they advocate "small government" are really mixing and matching that with "proper role of government". Once you look at it that way, none of these are necessarily contradictory.

Appreciate the response. To me, many who claim that we should have small / limited gov't also want that same gov't to be entrusted with the responsibility of killing its own citizens. How can you utterly not trust the gov't, but want it to be able to legally kill its citizens? To me that's crazy.

To your separate note, that might, in the end, be the solution here. But I am not the one going around and saying how Huckabee, for example, is a small gov't guy... or name any other of the right side of the aisle, Tea Party, small/limited gov't folks. So, until they stop self identifying with something that does not seem to be true, I think it's a legit point of discussion.

In a small government/large government philosophical distinction, I guess I don't see the difference between these two statements:

"How can you utterly not trust the gov't, but want it to be able to legally kill its citizens?"

"How can you utterly not trust the gov't, but want it to be able to legally permanently imprison its citizens?"

Re: that separate note, I think it's fair to say that I'm a small government kind of guy, but that doesn't literally mean I advocate "no government". What it means is that I want government to be as small as possible while still fulfilling its proper functions. I would guess most self-identified "small government conservatives" feel the same way; they just have a vastly different view of what comprises "the proper functions of government".

 

[Koya]

They don't really want small government.

I hear you, and it's a valid viewpoint... which is why I am more asking those who consider themselves conservatives to answer so I can better understand their perspective. It makes no sense to me, but the mantra of "small gov't" is so much a part of the dialogue, from the Contract with America through the Tea Party, that I need to at least better understand how the two go together.

And, if indeed it's not "small gov't" but "different gov't" or even "gov't that abide by certain moral values / religious values" then I'd accept it a lot more than the seemingly disingenuous "small gov't" cries from those who espouse views that are in direct contradiction to that assertion.

When they say small government they are really only talking about defunding the parts of government they don't like. Typically these are entitlement programs, funding for the arts, and a few other things that vary depending on which group you are talking to.

Which is why, imo, we need to make this a more legitimate conversation and stop accepting the "small gov't" bs when it is just that.

When it's a legit desire for smaller gov't across the board, maybe we will not only get somewhere, but find more agreement across ideological lines.

 

[jwp]

People want some parts of the government small just not the parts that they depend upon.

Like the Farm Bill? They hate socialism, right? At least that's what Joe the plumber told me.

 

[Rove!]

As most on this board probably know, I don't fall neatly into the left or the right, though it end up leaning more left by our political system (aka: limited choices). As such, my quick explanation to people is I am a left leaning libertarian who, in an ideal world, would allow each of us as individuals and free citizens to do as we please, so long as what we do does no harm to others. A lot of grey areas here (i.e. I should be free to not wear a helmet while on a motorcycle, but not if that means you are going to have to pay my medical bills when I crash, I have to take responsibility for that, even if taking responsibility means I can't afford it and die - to be blunt and to give but one example).

One of my biggest pet peeves by being in this odd middle (left on some issues, right on others) is this BS we hear about big gov't vs. small govt and the Capital Punishment thread got me thinking.

These are legit questions and certainly folks from any political viewpoint can respond, but especially curious to those who consider themselves small government conservatives. This is not a thread to needle your viewpoint, but to legitimately understand what I see as either hypocrisy or at least a complete disconnect between a stated goal (small gov't) and desired policies (that would seem to be big govt). Some examples:

How do we have people who claim to be all for small gov't, but want that gov't to kill its citizens via the death penalty?

don't really see much contradiction here. You could make a semantic argument about the death penalty giving the govt "more power" or an argument that having a restriction is a federal takeover of local jurisdictions and the will of the people. Not really a topic that involves day to day intrusion in lives...

How can you be for small gov't, but want a (MUCH) bigger armed forces?

Doesn't really impact individual rights, as the armed forces is a volunteer organization. Also, Defense is a duty of govt specifically enumerated. So even in bringing the scope of givt down, you don't want anarchy, but to get closer to the original powers

How can you be for a small gov't, but want that gov't to dictate that one language is "official"?

maybe a small contradiction, but small govt is nit the same as anarchy and being able to communicate in a uniform way is as elementary a govt power as i can imagine

How can you be for small gov't, but ask that gov't to push one view of God / religion rather than just staying out of it totally?

Don't know of anybody pushing this view

How can you be for small gov't, but want to impose a specific set of morality on others, including for things that have no negative (or any real) effect on others, be it blue laws or laws against homosexual acts?

Big contradiction here. I'm not sure how big the crossover is between the libertarian and social conservative wings of the R party are on this...

How can you be for small gov't, but insist on gov't sanctioned "marriage" to then be interwoven into our tax laws?

The movement has always focused on inceased govt intrusions into lives, and a mindset change wold be needed to "see" the govt intrusion created by the official recognition of traditional longstanding institutions like traditional marriage. -- Short answer is that the movement is not evolved to that yet...

not condoning any viewpoint, but looking to reconcile above

 

[Koya]

One of your examples doesn't appear to be a contradiction, at least to me. Specifically, the death penalty one doesn't seem to be any contradiction whatsoever, unless you're suggesting that those who advocate small government must necessarily advocate complete anarchy.

If one advocates for laws at all, then one must also advocate for consequences of breaking those laws. The form of consequence one advocates doesn't seem to fit into a small government/big government choice.

On a separate but related note, many who say they advocate "small government" are really mixing and matching that with "proper role of government". Once you look at it that way, none of these are necessarily contradictory.

Appreciate the response. To me, many who claim that we should have small / limited gov't also want that same gov't to be entrusted with the responsibility of killing its own citizens. How can you utterly not trust the gov't, but want it to be able to legally kill its citizens? To me that's crazy.

To your separate note, that might, in the end, be the solution here. But I am not the one going around and saying how Huckabee, for example, is a small gov't guy... or name any other of the right side of the aisle, Tea Party, small/limited gov't folks. So, until they stop self identifying with something that does not seem to be true, I think it's a legit point of discussion.

In a small government/large government philosophical distinction, I guess I don't see the difference between these two statements:

"How can you utterly not trust the gov't, but want it to be able to legally kill its citizens?"

"How can you utterly not trust the gov't, but want it to be able to legally permanently imprison its citizens?"

Re: that separate note, I think it's fair to say that I'm a small government kind of guy, but that doesn't literally mean I advocate "no government". What it means is that I want government to be as small as possible while still fulfilling its proper functions. I would guess most self-identified "small government conservatives" feel the same way; they just have a vastly different view of what comprises "the proper functions of government".

In regard to the capital punishment issue, you can change your mind on imprisonment, even if it means years of someone's life lost to prison. You can't change your mind on death... and it sets a dangerous precedent as well.

Of course, when the gov't is still, by and large at least, "for" the people (although less so each day it seems, and even more less so "by" the people) it's one thing. But our gov't will eventually grab too much power, it seems the natural course of political and power structure evolution... and to have the codified ability to execute scares the bejeebuz out of me as someone that inherently does not trust government (but recognizes the need to govern)

 

[IvanKaramazov]

How do we have people who claim to be all for small gov't, but want that gov't to kill its citizens via the death penalty? I don't. I oppose the death penalty, mainly on religious grounds.

How can you be for small gov't, but want a (MUCH) bigger armed forces? I'm cool with the government spending money on a national defense, the criminal justice system, and stuff like that. Under standard libertarian theory, those are all legitimate functions of government. Maybe our military is currently larger than optimal, but I have no philosophical objection to military spending per se.

How can you be for a small gov't, but want that gov't to dictate that one language is "official"? I don't. I do think the government should encourage people to use English, because it reduces transaction costs, but I also think the government ought to serve non-English speaking citizens as well.

How can you be for small gov't, but ask that gov't to push one view of God / religion rather than just staying out of it totally? I don't.

How can you be for small gov't, but want to impose a specific set of morality on others, including for things that have no negative (or any real) effect on others, be it blue laws or laws against homosexual acts? I don't.

How can you be for small gov't, but insist on gov't sanctioned "marriage" to then be interwoven into our tax laws? Civil marriage is just a collection of contract rights that theoretically people could negotiate on their own. I have no problem with the government providing that portfolio of contract rights as a "marriage package" for people who want to take advantage of them in an easy manner.

 

[TheIronSheik]

I don't really see the correlation of a small government and big military. I get the other one's, but I think a military is necessary. Am I alone on this?

 

[rockaction]

I also think that when people say "small government," what they're asking for is a return to the limited scope and powers that the federal government was assigned by the founders of our country. It's a language thing, really.

Aside from the military, our system of federalism, as first construed, wouldn't really touch most of these issues.

 

[Koya]

As most on this board probably know, I don't fall neatly into the left or the right, though it end up leaning more left by our political system (aka: limited choices). As such, my quick explanation to people is I am a left leaning libertarian who, in an ideal world, would allow each of us as individuals and free citizens to do as we please, so long as what we do does no harm to others. A lot of grey areas here (i.e. I should be free to not wear a helmet while on a motorcycle, but not if that means you are going to have to pay my medical bills when I crash, I have to take responsibility for that, even if taking responsibility means I can't afford it and die - to be blunt and to give but one example).

One of my biggest pet peeves by being in this odd middle (left on some issues, right on others) is this BS we hear about big gov't vs. small govt and the Capital Punishment thread got me thinking.

These are legit questions and certainly folks from any political viewpoint can respond, but especially curious to those who consider themselves small government conservatives. This is not a thread to needle your viewpoint, but to legitimately understand what I see as either hypocrisy or at least a complete disconnect between a stated goal (small gov't) and desired policies (that would seem to be big govt). Some examples:

How do we have people who claim to be all for small gov't, but want that gov't to kill its citizens via the death penalty?

don't really see much contradiction here. You could make a semantic argument about the death penalty giving the govt "more power" or an argument that having a restriction is a federal takeover of local jurisdictions and the will of the people. Not really a topic that involves day to day intrusion in lives...

How can you be for small gov't, but want a (MUCH) bigger armed forces?

Doesn't really impact individual rights, as the armed forces is a volunteer organization. Also, Defense is a duty of govt specifically enumerated. So even in bringing the scope of givt down, you don't want anarchy, but to get closer to the original powers

How can you be for a small gov't, but want that gov't to dictate that one language is "official"?

maybe a small contradiction, but small govt is nit the same as anarchy and being able to communicate in a uniform way is as elementary a govt power as i can imagine

How can you be for small gov't, but ask that gov't to push one view of God / religion rather than just staying out of it totally?

Don't know of anybody pushing this view

How can you be for small gov't, but want to impose a specific set of morality on others, including for things that have no negative (or any real) effect on others, be it blue laws or laws against homosexual acts?

Big contradiction here. I'm not sure how big the crossover is between the libertarian and social conservative wings of the R party are on this...

How can you be for small gov't, but insist on gov't sanctioned "marriage" to then be interwoven into our tax laws?

The movement has always focused on inceased govt intrusions into lives, and a mindset change wold be needed to "see" the govt intrusion created by the official recognition of traditional longstanding institutions like traditional marriage. -- Short answer is that the movement is not evolved to that yet...

not condoning any viewpoint, but looking to reconcile above

Appreciated. Point by point response:

1. I am not talking as much about Fed vs. State power, but that's an interesting perspective. Either way, I'd prefer that a gov't I dont especially trust not have the power to legally kill its citizens, regardless of whether it's a Fed or State authority.

2. Of course having a larger armed forces contributes to big govt and effects all citizens. For one, it costs (a lot of) money, and it's the money of the public in the end. Second, you have a situation where the very "thing" you don't trust - gov't - gets more an more ability and resources to take away more freedoms at their will (NSA being one recent example). So I completely see a much larger dedication to armed forces as part of a bigger government.

3. I hear you, but allowing free speech has not led us into anarchy yet, and it's a founding principle and a key tenet upon which our (lessening) freedom's are based.

4. From the pledge stating One Nation Under God to In God We Trust to folks who claim to be "small gov conservatives" who want school prayer and/or to limit the choices of individuals (i.e. God said homosexuality is bad, they should not have sex not to say marry), that's pushing one religious viewpoint over others.

The others I hear ya on, as well.

 

[17seconds]

I don't really see the correlation of a small government and big military. I get the other one's, but I think a military is necessary. Am I alone on this?

How much military though?

 

[Clifford]

A lot of people want the part of government that tells them what to do to be small, but the part of government that tells other people what to do to be big.

/thread

 

[TheIronSheik]

I don't really see the correlation of a small government and big military. I get the other one's, but I think a military is necessary. Am I alone on this?

How much military though?

Enough to never worry about being defeated. Ever.

 

[Koya]

How do we have people who claim to be all for small gov't, but want that gov't to kill its citizens via the death penalty? I don't. I oppose the death penalty, mainly on religious grounds.

How can you be for small gov't, but want a (MUCH) bigger armed forces? I'm cool with the government spending money on a national defense, the criminal justice system, and stuff like that. Under standard libertarian theory, those are all legitimate functions of government. Maybe our military is currently larger than optimal, but I have no philosophical objection to military spending per se.

How can you be for a small gov't, but want that gov't to dictate that one language is "official"? I don't. I do think the government should encourage people to use English, because it reduces transaction costs, but I also think the government ought to serve non-English speaking citizens as well.

How can you be for small gov't, but ask that gov't to push one view of God / religion rather than just staying out of it totally? I don't.

How can you be for small gov't, but want to impose a specific set of morality on others, including for things that have no negative (or any real) effect on others, be it blue laws or laws against homosexual acts? I don't.

How can you be for small gov't, but insist on gov't sanctioned "marriage" to then be interwoven into our tax laws? Civil marriage is just a collection of contract rights that theoretically people could negotiate on their own. I have no problem with the government providing that portfolio of contract rights as a "marriage package" for people who want to take advantage of them in an easy manner.

If only more were like you, my friend. Everything you state here I am 100% in alignment on. But I believe you would agree that the power base of the right / Republican Party does not see things as we do. And that is a shame.

You are a registered R, correct? I am a registered (albeit reluctant) D... yet we seem to share more than we disagree on, but our system somehow has us at cross paths. Then again, maybe that is why I consider myself more a libertarian who would prefer my gov't take my money (Dems) than my rights (Reps) because I can either make more money or find happiness without it, but I can't say the same without freedom - be it mine, or anothers. Plus, money comes and goes and does not bring happiness, Freedom, once lost, may never be regained.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

How do we have people who claim to be all for small gov't, but want that gov't to kill its citizens via the death penalty? I don't. I oppose the death penalty, mainly on religious grounds.

How can you be for small gov't, but want a (MUCH) bigger armed forces? I'm cool with the government spending money on a national defense, the criminal justice system, and stuff like that. Under standard libertarian theory, those are all legitimate functions of government. Maybe our military is currently larger than optimal, but I have no philosophical objection to military spending per se.

How can you be for a small gov't, but want that gov't to dictate that one language is "official"? I don't. I do think the government should encourage people to use English, because it reduces transaction costs, but I also think the government ought to serve non-English speaking citizens as well.

How can you be for small gov't, but ask that gov't to push one view of God / religion rather than just staying out of it totally? I don't.

How can you be for small gov't, but want to impose a specific set of morality on others, including for things that have no negative (or any real) effect on others, be it blue laws or laws against homosexual acts? I don't.

How can you be for small gov't, but insist on gov't sanctioned "marriage" to then be interwoven into our tax laws? Civil marriage is just a collection of contract rights that theoretically people could negotiate on their own. I have no problem with the government providing that portfolio of contract rights as a "marriage package" for people who want to take advantage of them in an easy manner.

If only more were like you, my friend. Everything you state here I am 100% in alignment on. But I believe you would agree that the power base of the right / Republican Party does not see things as we do. And that is a shame.

You are a registered R, correct? I am a registered (albeit reluctant) D... yet we seem to share more than we disagree on, but our system somehow has us at cross paths. Then again, maybe that is why I consider myself more a libertarian who would prefer my gov't take my money (Dems) than my rights (Reps) because I can either make more money or find happiness without it, but I can't say the same without freedom - be it mine, or anothers. Plus, money comes and goes and does not bring happiness, Freedom, once lost, may never be regained.

I think I'm actually a registered Independent, and I generally vote Libertarian. That said, I used to sympathize with the Republican party a lot more than I do today. I still sort of consider myself a Goldwaterite, but that wing of the party isn't very strong these days.

 

[Koya]

I don't really see the correlation of a small government and big military. I get the other one's, but I think a military is necessary. Am I alone on this?

How much military though?

Enough to never worry about being defeated. Ever.

What if by investing SO much in the military that:

1. You will never be defeated in war, but economically and perhaps socially you fall significantly behind other nations because of your imbalanced investment in the military? This could then cause internal strife where the enemy is less external, and more your own citizenry?

2. The military, as most power structures, becomes so big and powerful that it encroaches upon and perhaps one day limits or god forbid (but it's happened throughout history) eliminated the very freedoms that it is supposed to protect? Here, the enemy is no longer the external nation, but our own nation's military power structure. And if we know one rule of humanity, the rule of self preservation, for individuals or for groups, seems to overcome just about everything else. Power begets the want for more power, and by ceding the appropriate resources, you allow power to beget more power until it could usurp the populace of its rightful place as the true power base of the nation.

 

[mr roboto]

How do we have people who claim to be all for small gov't, but want that gov't to kill its citizens via the death penalty? I don't. I oppose the death penalty, mainly on religious grounds.

How can you be for small gov't, but want a (MUCH) bigger armed forces? I'm cool with the government spending money on a national defense, the criminal justice system, and stuff like that. Under standard libertarian theory, those are all legitimate functions of government. Maybe our military is currently larger than optimal, but I have no philosophical objection to military spending per se.

How can you be for a small gov't, but want that gov't to dictate that one language is "official"? I don't. I do think the government should encourage people to use English, because it reduces transaction costs, but I also think the government ought to serve non-English speaking citizens as well.

How can you be for small gov't, but ask that gov't to push one view of God / religion rather than just staying out of it totally? I don't.

How can you be for small gov't, but want to impose a specific set of morality on others, including for things that have no negative (or any real) effect on others, be it blue laws or laws against homosexual acts? I don't.

How can you be for small gov't, but insist on gov't sanctioned "marriage" to then be interwoven into our tax laws? Civil marriage is just a collection of contract rights that theoretically people could negotiate on their own. I have no problem with the government providing that portfolio of contract rights as a "marriage package" for people who want to take advantage of them in an easy manner.

If only more were like you, my friend. Everything you state here I am 100% in alignment on. But I believe you would agree that the power base of the right / Republican Party does not see things as we do. And that is a shame.

You are a registered R, correct? I am a registered (albeit reluctant) D... yet we seem to share more than we disagree on, but our system somehow has us at cross paths. Then again, maybe that is why I consider myself more a libertarian who would prefer my gov't take my money (Dems) than my rights (Reps) because I can either make more money or find happiness without it, but I can't say the same without freedom - be it mine, or anothers. Plus, money comes and goes and does not bring happiness, Freedom, once lost, may never be regained.

Republicans use 'small govt' as a key word rallying cry. That party is simply seeking to consolidate as many people as possible under their power. Whenever a group is interested more in gaining control and gaining members than their supposed philosophy, the latter goes out the window. But many people like IK (and myself) don't really have anywhere to turn at a national level who represent our philosophy. So R (or D) is as good as it's going to get if we want to contribute to something that has any hope of making an impact nationally. Having said that, we have far more power (and greater impact on our lives) at a local level. Therefore, I've remained mostly focused in my political activity at a county and smaller level.

 

[Koya]

How do we have people who claim to be all for small gov't, but want that gov't to kill its citizens via the death penalty? I don't. I oppose the death penalty, mainly on religious grounds.

How can you be for small gov't, but want a (MUCH) bigger armed forces? I'm cool with the government spending money on a national defense, the criminal justice system, and stuff like that. Under standard libertarian theory, those are all legitimate functions of government. Maybe our military is currently larger than optimal, but I have no philosophical objection to military spending per se.

How can you be for a small gov't, but want that gov't to dictate that one language is "official"? I don't. I do think the government should encourage people to use English, because it reduces transaction costs, but I also think the government ought to serve non-English speaking citizens as well.

How can you be for small gov't, but ask that gov't to push one view of God / religion rather than just staying out of it totally? I don't.

How can you be for small gov't, but want to impose a specific set of morality on others, including for things that have no negative (or any real) effect on others, be it blue laws or laws against homosexual acts? I don't.

How can you be for small gov't, but insist on gov't sanctioned "marriage" to then be interwoven into our tax laws? Civil marriage is just a collection of contract rights that theoretically people could negotiate on their own. I have no problem with the government providing that portfolio of contract rights as a "marriage package" for people who want to take advantage of them in an easy manner.

If only more were like you, my friend. Everything you state here I am 100% in alignment on. But I believe you would agree that the power base of the right / Republican Party does not see things as we do. And that is a shame.

You are a registered R, correct? I am a registered (albeit reluctant) D... yet we seem to share more than we disagree on, but our system somehow has us at cross paths. Then again, maybe that is why I consider myself more a libertarian who would prefer my gov't take my money (Dems) than my rights (Reps) because I can either make more money or find happiness without it, but I can't say the same without freedom - be it mine, or anothers. Plus, money comes and goes and does not bring happiness, Freedom, once lost, may never be regained.

I think I'm actually a registered Independent, and I generally vote Libertarian. That said, I used to sympathize with the Republican party a lot more than I do today. I still sort of consider myself a Goldwaterite, but that wing of the party isn't very strong these days.

I considered myself a "Republican in waiting" from about 25-35 years old. Over the past few years I feel so utterly alienated from the Republican base that I can't possibly see it.

That said, I do find myself voting Libertarian or even Independent more and more (including the past presidential election. Obama's a disaster, though I like him "personally" )

 

[Scoresman]

Yay for being Independent!

 

[rockaction]

I don't really see the correlation of a small government and big military. I get the other one's, but I think a military is necessary. Am I alone on this?

How much military though?

Enough to never worry about being defeated. Ever.

What if by investing SO much in the military that:

1. You will never be defeated in war, but economically and perhaps socially you fall significantly behind other nations because of your imbalanced investment in the military? This could then cause internal strife where the enemy is less external, and more your own citizenry?

2. The military, as most power structures, becomes so big and powerful that it encroaches upon and perhaps one day limits or god forbid (but it's happened throughout history) eliminated the very freedoms that it is supposed to protect? Here, the enemy is no longer the external nation, but our own nation's military power structure. And if we know one rule of humanity, the rule of self preservation, for individuals or for groups, seems to overcome just about everything else. Power begets the want for more power, and by ceding the appropriate resources, you allow power to beget more power until it could usurp the populace of its rightful place as the true power base of the nation.

That was sort of Eisenhower's point.

But what of federalism, to push a point? I mean, we're talking about a very specific set of instructions that even involved not directly electing Senators. There's a structure there. Once it was unwound, now we talk about everything as a federal issue, which is what all these issues are.

In other words, if we went back to the original structure, how many of these issues become national ones?

 

[Rich Conway]

One of your examples doesn't appear to be a contradiction, at least to me. Specifically, the death penalty one doesn't seem to be any contradiction whatsoever, unless you're suggesting that those who advocate small government must necessarily advocate complete anarchy.

If one advocates for laws at all, then one must also advocate for consequences of breaking those laws. The form of consequence one advocates doesn't seem to fit into a small government/big government choice.

On a separate but related note, many who say they advocate "small government" are really mixing and matching that with "proper role of government". Once you look at it that way, none of these are necessarily contradictory.

Appreciate the response. To me, many who claim that we should have small / limited gov't also want that same gov't to be entrusted with the responsibility of killing its own citizens. How can you utterly not trust the gov't, but want it to be able to legally kill its citizens? To me that's crazy.

To your separate note, that might, in the end, be the solution here. But I am not the one going around and saying how Huckabee, for example, is a small gov't guy... or name any other of the right side of the aisle, Tea Party, small/limited gov't folks. So, until they stop self identifying with something that does not seem to be true, I think it's a legit point of discussion.

In a small government/large government philosophical distinction, I guess I don't see the difference between these two statements:

"How can you utterly not trust the gov't, but want it to be able to legally kill its citizens?"

"How can you utterly not trust the gov't, but want it to be able to legally permanently imprison its citizens?"

Re: that separate note, I think it's fair to say that I'm a small government kind of guy, but that doesn't literally mean I advocate "no government". What it means is that I want government to be as small as possible while still fulfilling its proper functions. I would guess most self-identified "small government conservatives" feel the same way; they just have a vastly different view of what comprises "the proper functions of government".

In regard to the capital punishment issue, you can change your mind on imprisonment, even if it means years of someone's life lost to prison. You can't change your mind on death... and it sets a dangerous precedent as well.

Of course, when the gov't is still, by and large at least, "for" the people (although less so each day it seems, and even more less so "by" the people) it's one thing. But our gov't will eventually grab too much power, it seems the natural course of political and power structure evolution... and to have the codified ability to execute scares the bejeebuz out of me as someone that inherently does not trust government (but recognizes the need to govern)

Regarding your argument on capital punishment above, it just seems to me you're no longer arguing big government versus small government but rather good policy versus poor policy. Which is kind of why I originally stated that I didn't really see that one item as a contradiction re: size/scope of government.

 

[Koya]

I don't really see the correlation of a small government and big military. I get the other one's, but I think a military is necessary. Am I alone on this?

How much military though?

Enough to never worry about being defeated. Ever.

What if by investing SO much in the military that:

1. You will never be defeated in war, but economically and perhaps socially you fall significantly behind other nations because of your imbalanced investment in the military? This could then cause internal strife where the enemy is less external, and more your own citizenry?

2. The military, as most power structures, becomes so big and powerful that it encroaches upon and perhaps one day limits or god forbid (but it's happened throughout history) eliminated the very freedoms that it is supposed to protect? Here, the enemy is no longer the external nation, but our own nation's military power structure. And if we know one rule of humanity, the rule of self preservation, for individuals or for groups, seems to overcome just about everything else. Power begets the want for more power, and by ceding the appropriate resources, you allow power to beget more power until it could usurp the populace of its rightful place as the true power base of the nation.

That was sort of Eisenhower's point.

But what of federalism, to push a point? I mean, we're talking about a very specific set of instructions that even involved not directly electing Senators. There's a structure there. Once it was unwound, now we talk about everything as a federal issue, which is what all these issues are.

In other words, if we went back to the original structure, how many of these issues become national ones?

Interesting point. I think nationalism would have won out regardless in a number of ways, but I've learned to appreciate States Rights more as I've aged, albeit while watching what is left of it continue to be chipped away.

 

[Koya]

One of your examples doesn't appear to be a contradiction, at least to me. Specifically, the death penalty one doesn't seem to be any contradiction whatsoever, unless you're suggesting that those who advocate small government must necessarily advocate complete anarchy.

If one advocates for laws at all, then one must also advocate for consequences of breaking those laws. The form of consequence one advocates doesn't seem to fit into a small government/big government choice.

On a separate but related note, many who say they advocate "small government" are really mixing and matching that with "proper role of government". Once you look at it that way, none of these are necessarily contradictory.

Appreciate the response. To me, many who claim that we should have small / limited gov't also want that same gov't to be entrusted with the responsibility of killing its own citizens. How can you utterly not trust the gov't, but want it to be able to legally kill its citizens? To me that's crazy.

To your separate note, that might, in the end, be the solution here. But I am not the one going around and saying how Huckabee, for example, is a small gov't guy... or name any other of the right side of the aisle, Tea Party, small/limited gov't folks. So, until they stop self identifying with something that does not seem to be true, I think it's a legit point of discussion.

In a small government/large government philosophical distinction, I guess I don't see the difference between these two statements:

"How can you utterly not trust the gov't, but want it to be able to legally kill its citizens?"

"How can you utterly not trust the gov't, but want it to be able to legally permanently imprison its citizens?"

Re: that separate note, I think it's fair to say that I'm a small government kind of guy, but that doesn't literally mean I advocate "no government". What it means is that I want government to be as small as possible while still fulfilling its proper functions. I would guess most self-identified "small government conservatives" feel the same way; they just have a vastly different view of what comprises "the proper functions of government".

In regard to the capital punishment issue, you can change your mind on imprisonment, even if it means years of someone's life lost to prison. You can't change your mind on death... and it sets a dangerous precedent as well.

Of course, when the gov't is still, by and large at least, "for" the people (although less so each day it seems, and even more less so "by" the people) it's one thing. But our gov't will eventually grab too much power, it seems the natural course of political and power structure evolution... and to have the codified ability to execute scares the bejeebuz out of me as someone that inherently does not trust government (but recognizes the need to govern)

Regarding your argument on capital punishment above, it just seems to me you're no longer arguing big government versus small government but rather good policy versus poor policy. Which is kind of why I originally stated that I didn't really see that one item as a contradiction re: size/scope of government.

maybe it's just how I view this issue. I have a healthy distrust of government and any power base to be honest.

The last thing I want to do is grant the govt the legal right to kill its citizens. I don't like the idea now and it scares the crap out of me not if, but when our govt really consolidates its power and turns on its citizenry

 

[MaxThreshold]

Yay for being Independent!

Seriously? You're not even close to independent.

 

[Todd Andrews]

How do we have people who claim to be all for small gov't, but want that gov't to kill its citizens via the death penalty? I don't. I oppose the death penalty, mainly on religious grounds.

How can you be for small gov't, but want a (MUCH) bigger armed forces? I'm cool with the government spending money on a national defense, the criminal justice system, and stuff like that. Under standard libertarian theory, those are all legitimate functions of government. Maybe our military is currently larger than optimal, but I have no philosophical objection to military spending per se.

How can you be for a small gov't, but want that gov't to dictate that one language is "official"? I don't. I do think the government should encourage people to use English, because it reduces transaction costs, but I also think the government ought to serve non-English speaking citizens as well.

How can you be for small gov't, but ask that gov't to push one view of God / religion rather than just staying out of it totally? I don't.

How can you be for small gov't, but want to impose a specific set of morality on others, including for things that have no negative (or any real) effect on others, be it blue laws or laws against homosexual acts? I don't.

How can you be for small gov't, but insist on gov't sanctioned "marriage" to then be interwoven into our tax laws? Civil marriage is just a collection of contract rights that theoretically people could negotiate on their own. I have no problem with the government providing that portfolio of contract rights as a "marriage package" for people who want to take advantage of them in an easy manner.

If only more were like you, my friend. Everything you state here I am 100% in alignment on. But I believe you would agree that the power base of the right / Republican Party does not see things as we do. And that is a shame.

You are a registered R, correct? I am a registered (albeit reluctant) D... yet we seem to share more than we disagree on, but our system somehow has us at cross paths. Then again, maybe that is why I consider myself more a libertarian who would prefer my gov't take my money (Dems) than my rights (Reps) because I can either make more money or find happiness without it, but I can't say the same without freedom - be it mine, or anothers. Plus, money comes and goes and does not bring happiness, Freedom, once lost, may never be regained.

Fascinating. Other than being opposed to the death penalty more on philosophical than religious grounds, I am in 100% alignment with you both on these issues. And I am a lifelong registered I.

 

[tommyboy]

i'd prefer a gov't that doesn't spy on its citizens, its reporters, its congress. I'd prefer a gov't that doesn't send guns to cartels in Mexico. I'd prefer a gov't that doesn't enable Iran to get nukes. I'd prefer a gov't that doesn't lie to its people repeatedly about a peice of major legislation then change the legislation repeatedly to fit its own political desires.

 

[Abraham]

They don't really want small government.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I just want a government that can balance the budget. That would be a much smaller government.

I agree with this 100%.

 

[Todd Andrews]

i'd prefer a gov't that doesn't spy on its citizens, its reporters, its congress. I'd prefer a gov't that doesn't send guns to cartels in Mexico. I'd prefer a gov't that doesn't enable Iran to get nukes. I'd prefer a gov't that doesn't lie to its people repeatedly about a peice of major legislation then change the legislation repeatedly to fit its own political desires.

Listen, it is really time you quit blaming everything on George W Bush.

 

[avoiding injuries]

I just want a government that can balance the budget. That would be a much smaller government.

I agree with this 100%.

Yup. It may not classify as a small government, but i definitely want a smallER government.

 

[Christo]

How do we have people who claim to be all for small gov't, but want that gov't to kill its citizens via the death penalty?

How can you be for small gov't, but want a (MUCH) bigger armed forces?

How can you be for a small gov't, but want that gov't to dictate that one language is "official"?

How can you be for small gov't, but ask that gov't to push one view of God / religion rather than just staying out of it totally?

How can you be for small gov't, but want to impose a specific set of morality on others, including for things that have no negative (or any real) effect on others, be it blue laws or laws against homosexual acts?

How can you be for small gov't, but insist on gov't sanctioned "marriage" to then be interwoven into our tax laws?

The first two go directly to what you think the government should be. IMO, the main job of the government is to protect the physical well-being of the its citizens. The third goes to cost. It also does not interfere with anyone's right to conduct their own business in the language of their choice.

The other three I agree with you. Government has no business in religion, morality beyond acts which harm others or marriage.

 

[jon_mx]

They don't really want small government.

Speak for yourself. I want smaller government.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

People want some parts of the government small just not the parts that they depend upon.

Exactly. Most people want government to do the things they cannot do themselves.

The rest of the ideological flowers and perfume is just to cover up the naked self-interest.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

How do we have people who claim to be all for small gov't, but want that gov't to kill its citizens via the death penalty?

How can you be for small gov't, but want a (MUCH) bigger armed forces?

How can you be for a small gov't, but want that gov't to dictate that one language is "official"?

How can you be for small gov't, but ask that gov't to push one view of God / religion rather than just staying out of it totally?

How can you be for small gov't, but want to impose a specific set of morality on others, including for things that have no negative (or any real) effect on others, be it blue laws or laws against homosexual acts?

How can you be for small gov't, but insist on gov't sanctioned "marriage" to then be interwoven into our tax laws?

I don't consider myself a "small government" guy. I don't expect or even want "small" government.

I am a process guy. To me it's all about the Constitution. It's like a fantasy football league; we all agree on the rules, and when there's a tie in the FF championship game, why we just go to our rules and we see that bench points wins. Simple, right?

The Constitution doesn't say anything about the size of the government. It just says what our freedoms are, that they're guaranteed and what branches and state/feds governments can do what.

- So to me, the death penalty is a question of the 4th through 8th Amendments. After that it's pure morality if we execute someone or not, in questions of morality I say vote on it.

- The size of the army? To me all that's important is that the president is commander in chief. However in my view, he should always ask Congress' permission before he goes to war - everything from bombing Libya to going into Iraq or Grenada. Always. I think we've gotten away from this.

- An official language? Yeah I agree, the government guarantees Freedom of Speech, you can't tell people what to say and how to say it. - The government can make up its own rules about what language it writes its laws in, that's ok.

- Religion: Freedom of religion is absolute. So government can't ever have an official religion and no official should ever represent a certain religion. 1st Amendment rules.

- Morality: just vote on it. Why do people have a problem with democracy? If you lose, try to persuade people differently and try again.

- Taxes: Hey I agree, look at the 16th Amendment. Not only does it not say anything about single/married/jointly/separately, etc., it says "the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes". Income means revenues minus expenses.

The problem is that everyone wants to win every time. So no one will look at these rules, or advocate to change them if we want, because they do not always guarantee us a win, we gain some, we lose some. Nobody is cool with that.

So for instance, how about we say that the feds can't do anything but say what percentage of incomes (revenues minus expenses) they will be collecting - which means that we leave marriage completely out of it - but that means less money for the government. You cool with that?

Or, how about we say freedom of religion controls. So that means that a high school principle can't lead a school prayer, but if a bunch of students want to use a public high school gym for a prayer rally, they can do that because the state shouldn't interfere. You cool with that?