Re: 2016 Presidential Campaign
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Woof!
I honestly don't think I've heard anyone that is honest about wanting a smaller government.
I really do. I think we should live within our means. We should have balanced budgets and spend only what we bring in in tax revenue annually. $19 Trillion in debt is ridiculous. But to do it, we have to solve some problems like coming up with a better retirement age. Social Security was designed when life expectancy was age 67. It was supposed to get you by for a couple of years. We are now living to 72 and beyond. We have to do something about the cost of health care and drugs. We may need to quit policing the world. I don't have all the answers, but what we are doing is failing and we will collapse just like the USSR if we don't fix some things. But on the bright side, we will be forced into small government again.
Re: 2016 Presidential Campaign
I have a theory that the larger your government grows, the more impossible small government becomes.
300 million people simply cannot be governed in that way.
The solution is either to embrace big government, which tends either toward socialist or dictatorial regimes, or to divide into smaller areas which can be governed more simply. I believe that to be the theory behind the formation of States. But as we know, that eventually dissolved into a mere image for all intents and purposes.
Re: 2016 Presidential Campaign
As Glenn Reynolds says, we need to amend the Constitution to add the words, "and we mean it" to the end of the Tenth Amendment.
Re: 2016 Presidential Campaign
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Blue Dawg
I have a theory that the larger your government grows, the more impossible small government becomes.
300 million people simply cannot be governed in that way.
The solution is either to embrace big government, which tends either toward socialist or dictatorial regimes, or to divide into smaller areas which can be governed more simply. I believe that to be the theory behind the formation of States. But as we know, that eventually dissolved into a mere image for all intents and purposes.
I have a theory that when a society is committed to the Rule of Law, the sheer number of laws -- and by extension, the size of govt -- will necessarily increase or decrease as a function of population.
I think this is manifested by the tendency of many small govt advocates to gravitate toward rural areas. (Fewer people => fewer laws => less govt)
I guess I don't share yalls skepticism of govt because, to me, it's simply a natural occurrence of a large, advanced, Rule of Law society. Yes, corruption sucks and resources are misallocated and priorities misplaced. Those are all areas calling for improvement.
But 'shrinking' govt cannot be a valid solution unless you want to 1) abandon the Rule of Law or 2) substantially reduce population.
Re: 2016 Presidential Campaign
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Champ967
I have a theory that when a society is committed to the Rule of Law, the sheer number of laws -- and by extension, the size of govt -- will necessarily increase or decrease as a function of population.
I think this is manifested by the tendency of many small govt advocates to gravitate toward rural areas. (Fewer people => fewer laws => less govt)
I guess I don't share yalls skepticism of govt because, to me, it's simply a natural occurrence of a large, advanced, Rule of Law society. Yes, corruption sucks and resources are misallocated and priorities misplaced. Those are all areas calling for improvement.
But 'shrinking' govt cannot be a valid solution unless you want to 1) abandon the Rule of Law or 2) substantially reduce population.
I'm trying to understand, but I'm not getting it. It seems you could have the same laws regardless of the population. You may need more law enforcement, but not more laws.
Re: 2016 Presidential Campaign
Quote:
Originally Posted by
T1
I'm trying to understand, but I'm not getting it. It seems you could have the same laws regardless of the population. You may need more law enforcement, but not more laws.
Current laws cannot anticipate all the things people might do. Traditional laws against simple theft of property, for example, are insufficient to address digital identity theft.
Sooner has mentioned the principle that your right to swing your fist ends at my face. To extend the metaphor, more people swinging more fists in the same space means, necessarily, less freedom per person to swing fists.
More people => more overall behavior => more dumb / abusive behavior => more laws => more govt
A necessary evil, maybe. But still necessary.
Re: 2016 Presidential Campaign
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Champ967
Current laws cannot anticipate all the things people might do. Traditional laws against simple theft of property, for example, are insufficient to address digital identity theft.
Sooner has mentioned the principle that your right to swing your fist ends at my face. To extend the metaphor, more people swinging more fists in the same space means, necessarily, less freedom per person to swing fists.
More people => more overall behavior => more dumb / abusive behavior => more laws => more govt
A necessary evil, maybe. But still necessary.
A purely anarchist/minarchist society, as some libertarians want, can indeed function. There are a few successful cases through history. But the max population limit is about 200 or so. Definitely less than 1000. Basically, once you get to the point where everyone doesn't know every single other person, you move into a different phase of government. I think libertarian principles can still be applied, but you are right. Large populations *have* to have complicated governments. Otherwise they fracture to a point where the chosen system works.
Re: 2016 Presidential Campaign
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Champ967
Current laws cannot anticipate all the things people might do. Traditional laws against simple theft of property, for example, are insufficient to address digital identity theft.
Sooner has mentioned the principle that your right to swing your fist ends at my face. To extend the metaphor, more people swinging more fists in the same space means, necessarily, less freedom per person to swing fists.
More people => more overall behavior => more dumb / abusive behavior => more laws => more govt
A necessary evil, maybe. But still necessary.
But your first point is new laws needed for change in technology, not population. A law of "no swinging fists" should apply to all regardless of the population. You would just need more people arresting the swingers. But agree, having more police is probably considered "bigger government."
It reminds me of a pic I saw on Facebook this week:
http://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.M5...90&o=4&pid=1.1
Re: 2016 Presidential Campaign
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Blue Dawg
A purely anarchist/minarchist society, as some libertarians want, can indeed function. There are a few successful cases through history. But the max population limit is about 200 or so. Definitely less than 1000. Basically, once you get to the point where everyone doesn't know every single other person, you move into a different phase of government. I think libertarian principles can still be applied, but you are right. Large populations *have* to have complicated governments. Otherwise they fracture to a point where the chosen system works.
That may be what John Adams meant when he said,
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
The more immoral we become, the bigger the government becomes, and the bigger the government becomes the more corrupt the nation becomes.
Re: 2016 Presidential Campaign
Quote:
Originally Posted by
T1
But your first point is new laws needed for change in technology, not population.
Maybe that wasn't a strong example. But I stand by the point.
As more people find more ways to mistreat other people, new laws will be warranted. Addl govt will naturally arise from addl laws.
Re: 2016 Presidential Campaign
The ability to be able to steal someones identity increases as the population increases.
Re: 2016 Presidential Campaign
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JuBru
The ability to be able to steal someones identity increases as the population increases.
Perhaps, but so would the ability to protect someones identity. It doesn't have to be the government making laws either. Good business opportunity in a free market.
Re: 2016 Presidential Campaign
Quote:
Originally Posted by
T1
Good business opportunity in a free market.
You mean like marijuana?
Re: 2016 Presidential Campaign
Quote:
Originally Posted by
T1
Perhaps, but so would the ability to protect someones identity. It doesn't have to be the government making laws either. Good business opportunity in a free market.
Except we see time and again businesses don't take advantage of the business opportunity and have to be told to stop being stupid.
Re: 2016 Presidential Campaign
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Guisslapp
Watching Trump right now...is it possible that he is more liberal than Hillary? Lists health care and education as 2 of the 3 most important functions of government.
I'm not even a republican, but this stands out.
TRUMP: Well, the greatest function of all by far is security for our nation. I would also say health care, I would also say education. I mean, there are many, many things, but I would say the top three are security, security, security.
We have to have security for our country so that we can continue to exist as a country. We are in danger. Thousands and thousands of people are infiltrating our country. We don’t know who they are.
COOPER: So top three, you’re saying, security.
TRUMP: Security. I say all top three are security, but health care, education, would be probably three that would be top. And then you can go on from there.
COOPER: So just to follow-up, though…
COOPER: So in terms of federal government role, you’re saying security, but you also say health care and education should be provided by the federal government?
TRUMP: Well, those are two of the things. Yes, sure. I mean, there are obviously many things, housing, providing great neighborhoods…
(CROSSTALK)
COOPER: Aren’t you against the federal government’s involvement in education? don’t you want it to devolve to states?
TRUMP: I want it to go to state, yes. Absolutely. I want — right now…
COOPER: So that’s not part of what the federal government’s…
(CROSSTALK)
TRUMP: The federal government, but the concept of the country is the concept that we have to have education within the country, and we have to get rid of common core and it should be brought to the state level.
COOPER: And federal health care run by the federal government?
TRUMP: Health care — we need health care for our people. We need a good — Obamacare is a disaster. It’s proven to be…
COOPER: But is that something the federal government should be doing?
TRUMP: The government can lead it, but it should be privately done. It should be privately done. So that health care — in my opinion, we should probably have — we have to have private health care. We don’t have competition in health care.
