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

[LinusMarr]

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.

The liberals on this board will disagree, they love this #### lol

 

[Koya]

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.

The liberals on this board will disagree, they love this #### lol

If you want to pursue this line of thinking in the thread, so be it - but (1) I agree with everything listed and more importantly (2) the specific issues chosen are done so not out of a legitimate and objective perspective but rather partisan politics.

We have become so consumed, by politics. We need to refocus on governing. The ideologies are killing us. The game, the "winning" and the us vs. them, is killing us.

And, I don't believe you know what liberal means. Liberal? That's arguable, I suppose.

 

[humpback]

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

So do you want a smaller government?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

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.

The liberals on this board will disagree, they love this #### lol

Orwellian.

A majority of Dems voted to end funding for it... yet a majority of Repubs voted to keep it.

 

[Joe T]

I want a smaller government and don't want any of the things you placdd after "but".

Makes this pretty simple to me.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

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.

The liberals on this board will disagree, they love this #### lol

Orwellian.

A majority of Dems voted to end funding for it... yet a majority of Repubs voted to keep it.

The 4th Amendment says the government shall not seize without a warrant.

There are people in both parties who want this. Why does any Republican or Democrat get to vote or issue an order to seize phone records in the first place? Can they vote if they will go through our mail? No.

 

[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 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?

Great post. Not that I agree with all, but much. I agree about looking to the founding documents and the "rules" they have provided. That said, obviously it leaves much to interpretation, and likely that was done on purpose to provide some flexibility while adhering to the base, guiding tenets.

My one big point of disagreement at first blush is that we are a representative democracy, and 100% by design. The reason we don't just throw #### out to a vote - especially the important / difficult / sensitive / transformative issues - is to avoid the tyranny of the majority. There is a reason the general will and the will of the public is not synonymous with majority rules.

 

[jon_mx]

America is getting screwed by both parties. We have a government which effectively spends more than 100 percent of the entire economy. It is ####### crazy stupid, but we have people who defend either party. They both suck ###. We need smaller government and we need it now. Our government as is is not sustainable. .

 

[timschochet]

I used to be a very small government guy. In many ways, I still am. Free trade, woman's right to choose, gay rights, immigration- on all of these I am still small government and like Koya I have never understood why people who claim to be small government somehow aren't on these issues. Especially immigration- it amazes me to hear supposedly "small government" guys call for deportation of all illegal immigrants- as if that wouldn't involve the most draconian government expansion in our history.

However, there are other areas where I no longer can get behind small government. Two examples come to mind (though there are probably others): first, I stand against most people, both liberal and conservative in this forum, when I write that in this age of terrorism it is absolutely necessary for government to be more intrusive in order to maintain our security. And yes, that includes what the NSA is doing. Second, I am becoming truly concerned about global warming. Contrary to what some conservatives think, it's a real issue, it's not going away, and we have to deal with it somehow. And that may involve more government rather than less.

 

[timschochet]

America is getting screwed by both parties. We have a government which effectively spends more than 100 percent of the entire economy. It is ####### crazy stupid, but we have people who defend either party. They both suck ###. We need smaller government and we need it now. Our government as is is not sustainable. .

And I completely reject this line of thinking as well. The two parties have, historically, served us very well. The Democratic party has been pretty much the same over the years, and continues to serve us well. The Republican party, however, has given in to its' extremists. That's the problem, and that's what needs to be addressed. Blaming both parties is wrong.

 

[rockaction]

I used to be a very small government guy. In many ways, I still am. Free trade, woman's right to choose, gay rights, immigration- on all of these I am still small government and like Koya I have never understood why people who claim to be small government somehow aren't on these issues. Especially immigration- it amazes me to hear supposedly "small government" guys call for deportation of all illegal immigrants- as if that wouldn't involve the most draconian government expansion in our history.

However, there are other areas where I no longer can get behind small government. Two examples come to mind (though there are probably others): first, I stand against most people, both liberal and conservative in this forum, when I write that in this age of terrorism it is absolutely necessary for government to be more intrusive in order to maintain our security. And yes, that includes what the NSA is doing. Second, I am becoming truly concerned about global warming. Contrary to what some conservatives think, it's a real issue, it's not going away, and we have to deal with it somehow. And that may involve more government rather than less.

Clare Booth Luce -- noted brilliant conservative thinker --was stumped by how to keep government small while addressing environmentalism, so you're not alone.

Just figured I'd throw that out. I don't agree, but I was surprised to hear that.

 

[Thunderlips]

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.

I think that's pretty much it.

 

[Joe T]

How can these people be for small government, but for Obamacare?

Biggest hypocrites of all.

 

[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?

Great post. Not that I agree with all, but much. I agree about looking to the founding documents and the "rules" they have provided. That said, obviously it leaves much to interpretation, and likely that was done on purpose to provide some flexibility while adhering to the base, guiding tenets.

My one big point of disagreement at first blush is that we are a representative democracy, and 100% by design. The reason we don't just throw #### out to a vote - especially the important / difficult / sensitive / transformative issues - is to avoid the tyranny of the majority. There is a reason the general will and the will of the public is not synonymous with majority rules.

Well thanks and I don't want to debate the issues, I think your great OP gets hijacked that way.

I do agree with your post just a few up on this page, and I will add that everyone's been politicized because the process has broken down. Somehow nearly everyone over the last 20-40 years or so has gotten a blue or red tag slapped on them because of their views on one issue or another, and the reality is that everyone wants or thinks they should win on every single issue. The one thing about being in a democracy, or even a representative democracy, is that we should all feel we have some input and control and at the end of the day we had our say, and unfortunately that's just not how things are. We are all very, very far removed from our democracy right now, and we all get whipped up like some kind of inventory of voting and donating bitcoins held by one side or the other. We are in essence, political capital, the owned, not owners.

 

[humpback]

America is getting screwed by both parties. We have a government which effectively spends more than 100 percent of the entire economy. It is ####### crazy stupid, but we have people who defend either party. They both suck ###. We need smaller government and we need it now. Our government as is is not sustainable. .

And I completely reject this line of thinking as well. The two parties have, historically, served us very well. The Democratic party has been pretty much the same over the years, and continues to serve us well. The Republican party, however, has given in to its' extremists. That's the problem, and that's what needs to be addressed. Blaming both parties is wrong.

 

[Koya]

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

So do you want a smaller government?

In theory, 100%.

But at the same time, I recognize the need for the public realm. That said, I think the private sector is best suited to get most if not all things done, but you have to oversee that to ensure the public good. The gov't should ensure the health and safety of its citizens and facilitate the best quality of life for its residents. That's it in vague terms at least. To tired to get into detail at this point.

I'd like to see much smaller direct government reach / size, a decent reduction in the overall responsibilities of the government (at least at a Fed level) but that will be very difficult to do piecemeal (take arts funding, which maybe the gov't should not be directly involved in, but I'm not going to stand on ceremony and allow that to be taken away, but have over-reaching tax protections for houses of worship and associated entities, for example, it must all be addressed comprehensive imo. Where the gov't can provide better infrastructure (legal and physical) for the movement of goods and services, life in general etc, that's a fine role with the proper oversight. Often that means more getting out of the way than in the way, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking it's in the public interest to not regulate the private sector, that's a key role of gov't - regulate to let things flow, better, theoretically speaking.

I also realize that as much as intellectually I prefer less government, I don't mind it as much as I just don't trust it. Power wants more power, and gets more power, and that is the greatest danger to freedom. If there is one thing I love and want to protect more than anything in the world, it is freedom. From there, all flows. If we have full anarchy, the smallest of gov't, is that freedom, or are you more beholden to the dangers and the need to survive? And as much as I personally crave freedom, if a small degree more freedom means say millions of young children starve, I have to say I'm not ok with that. I can't let my ideology get in the way of what's actually best for the community at large, and it's always a question of what exactly is the right balance.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

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

 

[BigSteelThrill]

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.

The liberals on this board will disagree, they love this #### lol

Orwellian.

A majority of Dems voted to end funding for it... yet a majority of Repubs voted to keep it.

The 4th Amendment says the government shall not seize without a warrant.

There are people in both parties who want this. Why does any Republican or Democrat get to vote or issue an order to seize phone records in the first place? Can they vote if they will go through our mail? No.

Both, yes.

Equal, no.

 

[timschochet]

How can these people be for small government, but for Obamacare?

Biggest hypocrites of all.

I don't agree. And I think this is a false argument.

If we were living in a free market economy and somebody proposed Obamacare, I would agree with you 100%. But what did we have before Obamacare? We had a society in which everyone over 65 received free health care. Where any person who couldn't afford health care (or anyone who simply chose not to pay for it) could go to any emergency room and receive health care. Where government regulations and restrictions controlled the price and legality of every drug and every medical practice.

Given these facts, Obamacare does not represent a change from free market to more government so much as it simply changes what we already have in many ways. There are very good arguments to be made against Obamacare, but small government is not one of them.

 

[Koya]

I used to be a very small government guy. In many ways, I still am. Free trade, woman's right to choose, gay rights, immigration- on all of these I am still small government and like Koya I have never understood why people who claim to be small government somehow aren't on these issues. Especially immigration- it amazes me to hear supposedly "small government" guys call for deportation of all illegal immigrants- as if that wouldn't involve the most draconian government expansion in our history.

However, there are other areas where I no longer can get behind small government. Two examples come to mind (though there are probably others): first, I stand against most people, both liberal and conservative in this forum, when I write that in this age of terrorism it is absolutely necessary for government to be more intrusive in order to maintain our security. And yes, that includes what the NSA is doing. Second, I am becoming truly concerned about global warming. Contrary to what some conservatives think, it's a real issue, it's not going away, and we have to deal with it somehow. And that may involve more government rather than less.

Clare Booth Luce -- noted brilliant conservative thinker --was stumped by how to keep government small while addressing environmentalism, so you're not alone.

Just figured I'd throw that out. I don't agree, but I was surprised to hear that.

Goes to my point above about Gov't providing the infrastructure (in this case, legal / legislative / regulatory) to allow for better commerce while balancing quality of life. To me, at least, that concept makes simple sense. The implementation is, obviously, far more difficult.

There is plenty of money to be made by all under the right framework without harming the environment. It's hardly mutually exclusive.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

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.

Me three.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

How can these people be for small government, but for Obamacare?

Biggest hypocrites of all.

I don't agree. And I think this is a false argument.

If we were living in a free market economy and somebody proposed Obamacare, I would agree with you 100%. But what did we have before Obamacare? We had a society in which everyone over 65 received free health care. Where any person who couldn't afford health care (or anyone who simply chose not to pay for it) could go to any emergency room and receive health care. Where government regulations and restrictions controlled the price and legality of every drug and every medical practice.

Given these facts, Obamacare does not represent a change from free market to more government so much as it simply changes what we already have in many ways. There are very good arguments to be made against Obamacare, but small government is not one of them.

Case in point:

The right to an abortion: ok, we have a right to be free from the government telling us what procedures and operations we can have.

ACA: Hey let's create a government body that tells people what procedures and operations they can have. Oh sure they can have them all right, insurers and the government just won't pay for them and all medicine is 100% paid for by insurance and government.

 

[Joe T]

How can these people be for small government, but for Obamacare?

Biggest hypocrites of all.

I don't agree. And I think this is a false argument.If we were living in a free market economy and somebody proposed Obamacare, I would agree with you 100%. But what did we have before Obamacare? We had a society in which everyone over 65 received free health care. Where any person who couldn't afford health care (or anyone who simply chose not to pay for it) could go to any emergency room and receive health care. Where government regulations and restrictions controlled the price and legality of every drug and every medical practice.

Given these facts, Obamacare does not represent a change from free market to more government so much as it simply changes what we already have in many ways. There are very good arguments to be made against Obamacare, but small government is not one of them.

yes, I'm aware you think the government requiring everyone to have health insurance is not very different than what we had before and is not expansive at all.

 

[jonessed]

America is getting screwed by both parties. We have a government which effectively spends more than 100 percent of the entire economy. It is ####### crazy stupid, but we have people who defend either party. They both suck ###. We need smaller government and we need it now. Our government as is is not sustainable. .

And I completely reject this line of thinking as well. The two parties have, historically, served us very well. The Democratic party has been pretty much the same over the years, and continues to serve us well. The Republican party, however, has given in to its' extremists. That's the problem, and that's what needs to be addressed. Blaming both parties is wrong.

You can't make this #### up .

 

[BigSteelThrill]

How can these people be for small government, but for Obamacare?

Biggest hypocrites of all.

I don't agree. And I think this is a false argument.

If we were living in a free market economy and somebody proposed Obamacare, I would agree with you 100%. But what did we have before Obamacare? We had a society in which everyone over 65 received free health care. Where any person who couldn't afford health care (or anyone who simply chose not to pay for it) could go to any emergency room and receive health care. Where government regulations and restrictions controlled the price and legality of every drug and every medical practice.

Given these facts, Obamacare does not represent a change from free market to more government so much as it simply changes what we already have in many ways. There are very good arguments to be made against Obamacare, but small government is not one of them.

Case in point:

The right to an abortion: ok, we have a right to be free from the government telling us what procedures and operations we can have.

ACA: Hey let's create a government body that tells people what procedures and operations they can have. Oh sure they can have them all right, insurers and the government just won't pay for them and all medicine is 100% paid for by insurance and government.

So you went "one better" with your ACA and got in an abortion zinger.

 

[Koya]

How can these people be for small government, but for Obamacare?

Biggest hypocrites of all.

I don't know many people who claim to be strong small gov't types (especially the more common political factions) that are pro Obamacare.

Personally, I can't stand it... the policy itself in theory concerned me, but I could at least understand the theory from a zero sum perspective. However, the concern about how it might be implemented (or rather, not) has more than come to bear, and what's most concerning to me is that a ton of other issues, as or more important in the long run, have been jeopardized because of the Dem's selfish devotion to a stupid, bloated policy that might be nice in theory, but is, at BEST, no where near ready to implement. It's risked the continued (and basically unstoppable at this point) march of gay rights, focus on other social needs/programs, immigration, I could go on.

That said, the concept of providing health services to all, both intellectually and from a practical / socio-economic (and hard economic) perspective makes a lot of sense. But that's where I get to gov't should find a way to facilitate, not dictate and control and worse yet, actually manage in any way.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

How can these people be for small government, but for Obamacare?

Biggest hypocrites of all.

I don't agree. And I think this is a false argument.

If we were living in a free market economy and somebody proposed Obamacare, I would agree with you 100%. But what did we have before Obamacare? We had a society in which everyone over 65 received free health care. Where any person who couldn't afford health care (or anyone who simply chose not to pay for it) could go to any emergency room and receive health care. Where government regulations and restrictions controlled the price and legality of every drug and every medical practice.

Given these facts, Obamacare does not represent a change from free market to more government so much as it simply changes what we already have in many ways. There are very good arguments to be made against Obamacare, but small government is not one of them.

Case in point:

The right to an abortion: ok, we have a right to be free from the government telling us what procedures and operations we can have.

ACA: Hey let's create a government body that tells people what procedures and operations they can have. Oh sure they can have them all right, insurers and the government just won't pay for them and all medicine is 100% paid for by insurance and government.

So you went "one better" with your ACA and got in an abortion zinger.

And case in point:

- we want freedom of choosing our medical procedures (small government) and we want government to limit choice of medical procedure (not small government).

- OR-

- we want government to choose what are allowable medical procedures (not small government).

- OR -

- we want freedom of choosing our medical procedures (small government).

Again, are we being consistent here or not? Does one side win every time, or do both sides lose every so often in a normal democracy?

.

 

[timschochet]

America is getting screwed by both parties. We have a government which effectively spends more than 100 percent of the entire economy. It is ####### crazy stupid, but we have people who defend either party. They both suck ###. We need smaller government and we need it now. Our government as is is not sustainable. .

And I completely reject this line of thinking as well. The two parties have, historically, served us very well. The Democratic party has been pretty much the same over the years, and continues to serve us well. The Republican party, however, has given in to its' extremists. That's the problem, and that's what needs to be addressed. Blaming both parties is wrong.

You can't make this #### up .

No, you really can't.

 

[jon_mx]

America is getting screwed by both parties. We have a government which effectively spends more than 100 percent of the entire economy. It is ####### crazy stupid, but we have people who defend either party. They both suck ###. We need smaller government and we need it now. Our government as is is not sustainable. .

And I completely reject this line of thinking as well. The two parties have, historically, served us very well. The Democratic party has been pretty much the same over the years, and continues to serve us well. The Republican party, however, has given in to its' extremists. That's the problem, and that's what needs to be addressed. Blaming both parties is wrong.

The extreme thinking is to do nothing. You can not spend at the current rate. It is suiside.

 

[Koya]

Ok folks, enough timcocheting. Back to the topic at hand.

TIA.

 

[timschochet]

Ok folks, enough timcocheting. Back to the topic at hand.

TIA.

Sorry. I'll stay out of it.

 

[Koya]

Ok folks, enough timcocheting. Back to the topic at hand.

TIA.

Sorry. I'll stay out of it.

Not blaming you, let's just keep to somewhat topical, and not the TCTFT (Timschochet ### for Tat)

 

[Loan Sharks]

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.

I kind of think of the military like the post office. Technically we don't need mail delivery every day but paying for the postal service or military is a major employer.

You cut the military that is a lot of suddenly unemployed soldiers that are may or may not find jobs. If as a society we are going to be paying for them anways via military, unemployment, welfare, whatever. I prefer to get some return on investment that being a soldier if we need it.

To me it is a bad sign if the army isn't hiring.

 

[TPW]

Big government is a cancer on our society, ever more rapidly eroding away its resilience by syphoning away the resources of its productive citizens and distributing to other elements it holds in favor.

Would I like a big military capable of defending us against all threats? Sure. Do I think it's a good idea to encourage the long term stability of the nation by supporting policies that promote a traditional, nuclear family and healthy lifestyles? You'd better believe it.

However, the federal government has become so powerful, so pervasive, and so corrupt that at this point I'd rather see it dismantled and rebuilt from scratch than advocate for individual policies. You want to smoke weed and get high? Go for it. Do you want to marry your male partner because you really enjoy sodomy and hairy rear ends? Have at it. Just keep your inane lifestyle choices off my wave and stop asking others to accept and monetarily support them.

The smaller the government, the better.

 

[Koya]

Just keep your inane lifestyle choices off my wave and stop asking others to accept and monetarily support them.

Actually agreed with most of your post... but just what does this mean? What is an "inane" lifestyle and how are you monetarily supporting whatever this inane lifestyle is?

 

[humpback]

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

So do you want a smaller government?

In theory, 100%.

But at the same time, I recognize the need for the public realm. That said, I think the private sector is best suited to get most if not all things done, but you have to oversee that to ensure the public good. The gov't should ensure the health and safety of its citizens and facilitate the best quality of life for its residents. That's it in vague terms at least. To tired to get into detail at this point.

I'd like to see much smaller direct government reach / size, a decent reduction in the overall responsibilities of the government (at least at a Fed level) but that will be very difficult to do piecemeal (take arts funding, which maybe the gov't should not be directly involved in, but I'm not going to stand on ceremony and allow that to be taken away, but have over-reaching tax protections for houses of worship and associated entities, for example, it must all be addressed comprehensive imo. Where the gov't can provide better infrastructure (legal and physical) for the movement of goods and services, life in general etc, that's a fine role with the proper oversight. Often that means more getting out of the way than in the way, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking it's in the public interest to not regulate the private sector, that's a key role of gov't - regulate to let things flow, better, theoretically speaking.

I also realize that as much as intellectually I prefer less government, I don't mind it as much as I just don't trust it. Power wants more power, and gets more power, and that is the greatest danger to freedom. If there is one thing I love and want to protect more than anything in the world, it is freedom. From there, all flows. If we have full anarchy, the smallest of gov't, is that freedom, or are you more beholden to the dangers and the need to survive? And as much as I personally crave freedom, if a small degree more freedom means say millions of young children starve, I have to say I'm not ok with that. I can't let my ideology get in the way of what's actually best for the community at large, and it's always a question of what exactly is the right balance.

No offense, but this sounds like it came from a politician- lots of generic buzz words, but very few if any details.

I think just about everyone agrees that government has some role- the debate is about the size and scope of that role, which is mostly subjective.

 

[TPW]

Just keep your inane lifestyle choices off my wave and stop asking others to accept and monetarily support them.

Actually agreed with most of your post... but just what does this mean? What is an "inane" lifestyle and how are you monetarily supporting whatever this inane lifestyle is?

It seems like one of the main functions of our government these days is insulating people from the results of their own stupid decisions. How many lazy stoners do you think are collecting unemployment rather than putting in a day of hard work? How many college students have racked up tens of thousands dollars in government loans only to default on their payments because the worthless liberal arts degree they received won't get them a decent career? Gay activists screamed bloody murder and claimed the federal government needed to spend billions to fight AIDS while conveniently forgetting it was their own extremely reckless behavior which resulted in it becoming widespread within their community. How many single mothers become and stay that way because Uncle Sugar pays the bills a heck of a lot better than "baby daddy"? I could go on and on.

America has become a nation filled with tens of millions of entitled, narcissistic, identity politics obsessed losers who are enabled by a government that is more than happy to cater to their every whim in return for their undying allegiance on election day.

 

[Todd Andrews]

How can these people be for small government, but for Obamacare?

Biggest hypocrites of all.

Because Obamacare is essentially a free market approach which requires people to buy commercial health insurance rather than freeload and drive everyone's rates up, and only a small portion of it is expanding government health care. You forget that Obamacare was the "small government" crowd's free market solution to universal single payer government health care.

 

[datonn]

Political parties are complicated...as people align themselves with "the lesser of two evils" (on either side of the aisle) for a variety of reasons.

People who vote Republican:

1. They want to live in a theocratic state.
2. They are against abortion (also see: #1)
3. It benefits them personally (financially).

4. They are for a reduction in social services (welfare state).

5-1,000,000. _________________

People who vote Democrat:

1. They DON'T want to live in a theocratic state.

2. They are pro-abortion.

3. It benefits them personally (financially).

4. They are for the current level of, or expanded, social services (welfare state, see #3)

5-1,000,000. _________________

If Libertarians would just be their own party, REALLY be their own party, and stop aligning with Republicans and Tea Party supporters, I think they could pull a LOT of independents and moderate Democrats over to their camp. But Libertarians moving further Right over the years, as well as Republicans moving further Right since the Tea Party and (earlier) Clinton not remembering what the definition of 'is' is) has created a canyon between the two major parties. No bridge is going to cross it either...apart from some other major international incident, like 9/11. But if Libertarians would at least tell the Tea Party (and the Republicans who seem to enjoy licking their boots, for some unknown reason) to #### off once and for all, run some candidates against them in red states and beat them...then NOT caucus with the Republicans, I think we could actually accomplish something positive.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

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?

...

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

Are these two sentiments consistent? At least at the federal level, isn't voting on morality barred by the constitutional doctrine of specifically enumerated powers? Ours is not an all-purpose democracy. It's a severely limited democracy. To answer your question, people have a problem with certain aspects of democracy when those aspects are unconstitutional.

(At the state level, there are decent arguments for deciding moral issues by vote; but even then, democracy is severely constrained by the federal Due Process and Equal Protection clauses.)

 

[RCon]

I used to be a very small government guy. In many ways, I still am. Free trade, woman's right to choose, gay rights, immigration- on all of these I am still small government and like Koya I have never understood why people who claim to be small government somehow aren't on these issues. Especially immigration- it amazes me to hear supposedly "small government" guys call for deportation of all illegal immigrants- as if that wouldn't involve the most draconian government expansion in our history.

However, there are other areas where I no longer can get behind small government. Two examples come to mind (though there are probably others): first, I stand against most people, both liberal and conservative in this forum, when I write that in this age of terrorism it is absolutely necessary for government to be more intrusive in order to maintain our security. And yes, that includes what the NSA is doing. Second, I am becoming truly concerned about global warming. Contrary to what some conservatives think, it's a real issue, it's not going away, and we have to deal with it somehow. And that may involve more government rather than less.

In other words, you want small government on your issues, big government on other people's issues. Pretty much exactly what you accuse the extremists of.

 

[Todd Andrews]

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?

...

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

Are these two sentiments consistent? At least at the federal level, isn't voting on morality barred by the constitutional doctrine of specifically enumerated powers? Ours is not an all-purpose democracy. It's a severely limited democracy. To answer your question, people have a problem with certain aspects of democracy when those aspects are unconstitutional.

(At the state level, there are decent arguments for deciding moral issues by vote; but even then, democracy is severely constrained by the federal Due Process and Equal Protection clauses.)

Voting for morality is KooKGovernment.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

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?

...

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

Are these two sentiments consistent? At least at the federal level, isn't voting on morality barred by the constitutional doctrine of specifically enumerated powers? Ours is not an all-purpose democracy. It's a severely limited democracy. To answer your question, people have a problem with certain aspects of democracy when those aspects are unconstitutional.

(At the state level, there are decent arguments for deciding moral issues by vote; but even then, democracy is severely constrained by the federal Due Process and Equal Protection clauses.)

Let's try to keep it close on the OP.

isn't voting on morality barred by the constitutional doctrine of specifically enumerated powers

No, I think this defies the very meaning of "govern"ment. What are we governing? Every law considered is based on morality, what is good or bad, best or worst for us. The essence of government everywhere not just here is the criminal code. This would be like saying our FF league's rules don't cover fantasy football, just distribution of dues, which is meaningless.

people have a problem with certain aspects of democracy when those aspects are unconstitutional.

First of all, we don't vote on everything, a good democracy must have rights, as do we. We don't vote on enshrined rights.

The rub is that some people cry "small government" by seeking to transform behavior into rights one moment and then in another claim no such right exists. One example might be the 4th Amendment: we have people that think that profiling or the NYC frisk policy is unconstitutional, and would be offended if they found a postman reading their mail at their front door, but then have no problem knowing that some faceless contractor working in a mountain is reading their email and tracking their calls. Now, do we like small government, or do we like big government?

(At the state level, there are decent arguments for deciding moral issues by vote; but even then, democracy is severely constrained by the federal Due Process and Equal Protection clauses.)

I agree, but obviously not everything we do is protected equally, just when we engage in behavior we consider to be rights (speech for instance, is behavior).

I don't want to digress, because this is about the hypocrisy of the 'small government' language, and I agree with that point in the OP. I thought you put it extremely well, people love small government when it's them being affected, not when it's others.

And to that point, we're all talking in the abstract here. I encourage people to get involved in local politics, where democracy is real and up close, and it's really something (and dangerous by the way). In local politics you can watch conservatives become liberals and liberals become conservatives. I've seen it all the time.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

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?

...

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

Are these two sentiments consistent? At least at the federal level, isn't voting on morality barred by the constitutional doctrine of specifically enumerated powers? Ours is not an all-purpose democracy. It's a severely limited democracy. To answer your question, people have a problem with certain aspects of democracy when those aspects are unconstitutional.

(At the state level, there are decent arguments for deciding moral issues by vote; but even then, democracy is severely constrained by the federal Due Process and Equal Protection clauses.)

Voting for morality is KooKGovernment.

Why do you say that? If we vote to build a road to a poor neighborhood, or to fund a hospital, isn't that morality? I should hope so.

 

[Tom Servo]

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?

Just because someone wants "small" or "limited" government, does not mean that it is one absent of laws. That's anarchy.

What limited government people are talking about is - IMO - a return to the scope of government at the nation's founding. It didn't do everything for everybody. Part of that thinking is that this country was founded on a Judeo-Christian basis -- and spare me the "so and so was a deist"; they still believed in God and a Christian ethic. It does not negate the fact that the founding religion -- the one that most colonists believed -- was protestant Christianity.

These issues of death penalty, official language, etc. can be held by anyone, not just smaller government conservatives. If a community still wants blue laws, that should be their right to do that; the closer the government is to the people, the more responsive it will be to their needs. In one sense, we're talking about limited FEDERAL government and bringing it to heel with respect to the 10th amendment.

 

[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.

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.

I can see your point on this. And I obviously can't say this wouldn't ever happen. I just don't think we're near that happening in the US. But I understand your point now.

 

[jon_mx]

How can these people be for small government, but for Obamacare?

Biggest hypocrites of all.

Because Obamacare is essentially a free market approach which requires people to buy commercial health insurance rather than freeload and drive everyone's rates up, and only a small portion of it is expanding government health care. You forget that Obamacare was the "small government" crowd's free market solution to universal single payer government health care.

Government stepping in and mandating people have health insurance and mandating the type of coverage is not free market, but thanks for playing.

 

[worrierking]

Koya,, I would probably agree with your take on 99% of the issues, but I would lean right rather than left.

Some people in here have come close to explaining the apparent contradictions of conservatism, but not entirely. I will try.

Conservatives are basically happy and satisfied and credit their own contentment to the structures both societal and governmental that got them to their current status. They believe strongly that we have the greatest society on earth and that changing it risks losing it. This is retrograde thinking but it is not irrational.

So if we had a big military, changing that is risky. If we had limited social programs, expanding that is risky. If we all grew up respecting our elders and working hard, people who don't do that are a threat. Sometimes these ideals are in contradiction to the broadest concept of small government. I agree that it is cherry-picking the small government issue, but it is a consistent application of their worldview.

I believe liberals cherry pick it as well. Look at the arguments about the recent CBO report on the ACA. The report said that the equivalent of 2 million workers would be unemployed because of the law and the left trumpeted that as a great victory for personal freedom because most of the job losses were from people who now had coverage and could elect to work fewer hours or not at all. At the same time the law has some of the most onerous invasions of personal liberty in our history. The individual mandate is despicable in my view but the same people saying how great it is to have the choice not to work under Obamacare are fully on board with it.

One difference between us Koya, is that you are not so concerned by the taking of money from taxpayers. I believe that is the single greatest usurpation of our freedoms.

Good discussion and reasonably civil so far.

 

[tom22406]

I used to be a very small government guy. In many ways, I still am. Free trade, woman's right to choose, gay rights, immigration- on all of these I am still small government and like Koya I have never understood why people who claim to be small government somehow aren't on these issues. Especially immigration- it amazes me to hear supposedly "small government" guys call for deportation of all illegal immigrants- as if that wouldn't involve the most draconian government expansion in our history.

However, there are other areas where I no longer can get behind small government. Two examples come to mind (though there are probably others): first, I stand against most people, both liberal and conservative in this forum, when I write that in this age of terrorism it is absolutely necessary for government to be more intrusive in order to maintain our security. And yes, that includes what the NSA is doing. Second, I am becoming truly concerned about global warming. Contrary to what some conservatives think, it's a real issue, it's not going away, and we have to deal with it somehow. And that may involve more government rather than less.

I'm confused by this statement regarding the NSA.Did you flip back to the side that you started on in the NSA thread despite the hundreds of articles telling you the bulk collections are basically useless?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

How can these people be for small government, but for Obamacare?

Biggest hypocrites of all.

Because Obamacare is essentially a free market approach which requires people to buy commercial health insurance rather than freeload and drive everyone's rates up, and only a small portion of it is expanding government health care. You forget that Obamacare was the "small government" crowd's free market solution to universal single payer government health care.

Right, and yet here we have progressives (big government) supporting a mandate that is based on ideas of personal responsibility (small government!) via compelling personal behavior (big government) while their own liberal (anti small government) president who used to criticize executive orders (small government) now issues EO's (not small government) to restrain this law (the law itself is big government), which restraint conservatives (small government) now oppose and which progressives may or may not support depending on whether they prioritize supporting their leader over their actual values.

Confusion abounds.