Most people who claim they want small government seem to actual want a different kind of big government.

This is what we would have to do for us to have a small government. We would have to have low taxes and low spending. We would have to legalize prostitution and marijuana. We would have to have alot of deregulation. We would have to shrink the size of our military and close our foreign bases. We would have to make sure people had a right to bare arm. We would have to legalize gay marriage.

Most people want some of the things and not want other things that I have mentioned. That's why I say most people who claim to want small government really want a different kind of big government.

So here is my question do you really want a small government or do you just want a different kind of big government?

Small government would mean less intrusive Government with less power to control your life, not smaller everything, and the last time I checked the military was not a part of the government

If I had to guess, you would be describing the modern Republicans. I for one would like a smaller government, with no expansion in power anywhere else, and can say that without being full of shit.

Yah it doesn't make much sense, while the Republican party does stick to its original ideology it does not adhere to small government. A small government wouldn't dictate who can marry who, a small government wouldn't be looking to interfere abroad, a small government wouldn't be looking to expand its ability to jail people etc.etc.. Now when it comes to the original Republicans they're still quite on track.

At 8/17/12 12:36 AM, lilfozzy wrote: Small government would mean less intrusive Government with less power to control your life, not smaller everything, and the last time I checked the military was not a part of the government

Yah it actually is.

At 8/17/12 12:36 AM, lilfozzy wrote: last time I checked the military was not a part of the government

What? You do realize that the head of the executive branch of government controls the military, they follow rules set up by the judiciary and executive armsof government, they get all of their funding through taxes collected by the government, and they are totally intertwined with the government, right?

At 8/17/12 12:36 AM, lilfozzy wrote: Small government would mean less intrusive Government with less power to control your life, not smaller everything, and the last time I checked the military was not a part of the government

Ummm, dude...military is DEFINITELY part of the government...it IS the government, so please revisit your history books... the only reason that the government IS the government is because of the military.

Government is defined as a monopoly over military affairs. That IS government.

Off soapbox.

"Small government" is a cover for funneling more citizen tax money to private interests. In case you guys haven't noticed, government is in constant competition with private business over resources. The reason that the Republicans really want "smaller government" is because their constituencies do not lie within the public sector.

The more money that the government saves through being "smaller," the more profit will be free after taxes are collected to give to big oil, big finance, and big manufacturing. The GOP wants to give money to Lockheed Martin and Exxon...that's all. You gotta follow the money, that's it.

At 8/20/12 07:10 AM, SenatorJohnDean wrote:
Off soapbox.

"Small government" is a cover for funneling more citizen tax money to private interests. In case you guys haven't noticed, government is in constant competition with private business over resources. The reason that the Republicans really want "smaller government" is because their constituencies do not lie within the public sector.

The more money that the government saves through being "smaller," the more profit will be free after taxes are collected to give to big oil, big finance, and big manufacturing. The GOP wants to give money to Lockheed Martin and Exxon...that's all. You gotta follow the money, that's it.

while the Republican party is in favour of this for sure, people who actually want small government also want less subsidies for businesses big and small. In fact their ideal amount of subsidies is NONE. As well, they wan't taxes to be smaller to fit the new bill. While some people in office differ in this, its the same on the left how people want to be able to do what they choose to do with their own bodies, but then the people they elect have the nanny mentality instead.

At 8/20/12 09:52 AM, Iron-Hampster wrote:
while the Republican party is in favour of this for sure, people who actually want small government also want less subsidies for businesses big and small. In fact their ideal amount of subsidies is NONE. As well, they wan't taxes to be smaller to fit the new bill. While some people in office differ in this, its the same on the left how people want to be able to do what they choose to do with their own bodies, but then the people they elect have the nanny mentality instead.

I commend your defense of the ideology; however, this does not change the actuality of the policies invoked by those who will likely be in power.

Those who espouse your viewpoint are on the unelectable edge of your ideology, i.e. Ron Paul. As commendable as this stance may be, these policies are destined to go the way of Confucius and Machiavelli -- unheeded in their own day.

I am dealing with actuality, not debating ideology. The Republican candidate who will either be elected or not come the 2012 ballot does NOT subscribe to your ideology; indeed, he makes concessions for the power brokers who have always been in power, the financial and natural resource elite. There is no mistaking this is either his nor his Vice-Presidential pick's history or current rhetoric.

At 8/20/12 01:00 PM, SenatorJohnDean wrote:
I commend your defense of the ideology; however, this does not change the actuality of the policies invoked by those who will likely be in power.

Those who espouse your viewpoint are on the unelectable edge of your ideology, i.e. Ron Paul. As commendable as this stance may be, these policies are destined to go the way of Confucius and Machiavelli -- unheeded in their own day.

I am dealing with actuality, not debating ideology. The Republican candidate who will either be elected or not come the 2012 ballot does NOT subscribe to your ideology; indeed, he makes concessions for the power brokers who have always been in power, the financial and natural resource elite. There is no mistaking this is either his nor his Vice-Presidential pick's history or current rhetoric.

I wouldn't doubt that for a second, i kept up with the primaries from the start and know that Mitt Romney has no real principles and that Paul Ryan is a Christian republican who pretends to like Ayn Rand and Rage against the machine, at least 3 different contradictions in one. But the Democratic ballot really is no different in policy or ridiculousness. Voting one or the other will never break this self destructive cycle, that's why I choose not to conform.

No government, preferably.

At 8/21/12 03:33 AM, MultiCanimefan wrote: No government, preferably.

NAa, cuz then China would enslave us all cuz we owe it so much money.

US Constitution
Article 1 Section 8

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

---

In keeping with our Founder's ideas on the military I would thereby slash the size of the Army by 80% of its personnel. It is the least significant of the four branches from a strategic perspective. The Navy and Air Force are far more important (that's why the Founders didn't put a time limit on appropriating funds to the Navy and the USAF was yet to be a thing) in terms of keeping the seaways and airways open as well as monitoring and facilitating the use of space (NASA and the USAF & USN work very closely with one another).

At 8/22/12 08:08 PM, TheMason wrote: The Navy and Air Force are far more important

Actually, I would say that a better reason there was no 2 year limit on the navy is that it took over 2 years to build a ship. The USS Constitution, a standard frigate of the time, took just 10 days shy of three full years from beginning to launch. Without guaranteed funding it would be difficult to get a ship builder to build you a ship. Even if you could, it could result in massive waste if two years into building a ship, Congress decided to not fund to rest of its construction.

At 8/22/12 08:57 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 8/22/12 08:08 PM, TheMason wrote: The Navy and Air Force are far more important

Actually, I would say that a better reason there was no 2 year limit on the navy is that it took over 2 years to build a ship. The USS Constitution, a standard frigate of the time, took just 10 days shy of three full years from beginning to launch. Without guaranteed funding it would be difficult to get a ship builder to build you a ship. Even if you could, it could result in massive waste if two years into building a ship, Congress decided to not fund to rest of its construction.

Yeah...while I agree was part of it, I don't think it was all of it. After all once authorizied and the money allocated to a contract, the government would've been forced to honor it.

The founders understood that a strong...or at least competitive...Navy was necessary to US trade with other countries and our military independence and defense from foreign powers.

The Army on the other hand was viewed with suspicion by the founders. It was seen as something that could lead to repression of individual and states rights on one hand and dangerous military adventures abroad on the other. That is why the militia is the third branch of the military (not the Marines or the National Guard) named in the Constitution.

At 8/22/12 09:52 PM, TheMason wrote: The Army on the other hand was viewed with suspicion by the founders. It was seen as something that could lead to repression of individual and states rights on one hand and dangerous military adventures abroad on the other. That is why the militia is the third branch of the military (not the Marines or the National Guard) named in the Constitution.

Also, standing armies in peace time was not a ubiquitous thing like they are today. Oftentimes, countries didn't have much of a standing army until it needed to be raised for a war or an impending war. Unlike today where the concept of military readiness has become a very important part of war.

At 8/22/12 08:08 PM, TheMason wrote: US Constitution
Article 1 Section 8

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

---

In keeping with our Founder's ideas on the military I would thereby slash the size of the Army by 80% of its personnel. It is the least significant of the four branches from a strategic perspective. The Navy and Air Force are far more important (that's why the Founders didn't put a time limit on appropriating funds to the Navy and the USAF was yet to be a thing) in terms of keeping the seaways and airways open as well as monitoring and facilitating the use of space (NASA and the USAF & USN work very closely with one another).

Why would we use the Founder's idea's on military? I mean there's multiple reasons to disregard certain intentions of the Founders because they lived in a different society and they themselves did not agree on how to interpret the Constitution. Moreover it was meant to appease many different groups, merchants, farmers slave holders etc. and have some guaranteed protection of certain rights such as the right to own slaves. The military, I'd imagine, would be one of the more acceptable ones to neglect the founder's intentions because for one their approach failed as demonstrated in the War of 1812 to create an effective fighting force and there's also the fact that the military has changed alot since 1788. For one having a powerful navy by now isn't as important as it was back then because of airplanes, by now we can go around the world in a day and go over countries, back then the only way to get around the world was by boat.

Now I don't know too much about the military to be honest, but I highly doubt we should be taking the Founder's advice on it, especially considering back then we were merely a regional power in the America's and a very weak one at that and had no intention of becoming a global powerhouse (hell the Democratic-Republicans feared industrialization as a threat to their democratic society), a status it wouldn't truly attain until the late 1800's and early 1900's. By then there were more people seeking to reform the approach to government than to enhance the old approaches.

At 8/22/12 11:23 PM, Warforger wrote:

Why would we use the Founder's idea's on military? I mean there's multiple reasons to disregard certain intentions of the Founders because they lived in a different society and they themselves did not agree on how to interpret the Constitution.

their arguments were attempts to minimize loopholes and challenge ideas to make sure the constitution would maximize freedom and have as little room to wise ass your way around. Their ideas on the military, limiting tax terms, was to prevent the runaway income tax we have today. before WW1 there was no income tax, and for both Canada and USA, income tax was supposed to expire after the war. it didn't, it is still freaking here, and has gotten a lot higher since it's time.

so you can modernize that section for sure, but damn it they had good reason to have something like it.

At 8/23/12 12:21 AM, Iron-Hampster wrote:

At 8/22/12 11:23 PM, Warforger wrote:

Why would we use the Founder's idea's on military? I mean there's multiple reasons to disregard certain intentions of the Founders because they lived in a different society and they themselves did not agree on how to interpret the Constitution.

their arguments were attempts to minimize loopholes and challenge ideas to make sure the constitution would maximize freedom and have as little room to wise ass your way around. Their ideas on the military, limiting tax terms, was to prevent the runaway income tax we have today. before WW1 there was no income tax, and for both Canada and USA, income tax was supposed to expire after the war. it didn't, it is still freaking here, and has gotten a lot higher since it's time.

Incorrect. The first income tax was passed during the Civil War but was later ruled unconstitutional. Before WWI in 1913 the 16th amendment making income taxes legal was passed. This was roughly 4 years before the US joined in WWI so I don't think it was just for WWI, but it was during the Civil just for the Civil War. Currently it doesn't make much sense to get rid of it though because that wouldn't change the mandatory government spending. Although I do think a long term repeal would make more sense because balancing a budget is easier when your revenue is consistent whereas during a recession your revenue goes down whereas during a boom it goes up.

so you can modernize that section for sure, but damn it they had good reason to have something like it.

Exactly, the Constitution was written with a different atmosphere in mind with different groups. The vision the Founding Fathers had for America was a very different one than what America ended up taking and amongst each other was conflicting in itself. While I don't agree with ignoring parts of the Constitution, what I'm arguing for is trying to give less relevance to what the Founding Fathers intended because they lived in a very different society and had a very different vision of America even amongst themselves.

I do not understand people who say "Oh well its different now. The Founding Fathers had no idea what things would be like. Things are much more dangerous now then they were back then."

I find it outrageous when people say that. Just looking back you can see that is not true. The monarchs of Europe were very hostile to our revolution. For it encouraged rebellion in there country's. Honestly I think the only reason they didn't destroy us before we were on our feet and able to defend our selves is because they were busy fighting Napoleon.

Also there were hostile tribes constantly harassing our borders and destroying our frontier settlements.

They had plenty to fear and yet they did not give up liberty for safety. As any true American should. Now one more point. We are clearly safer now then they were. All we have to fear is some terrorists and the worst they could do to us is blow up a building. Its not like they have the power to conquer us like the monarchs in the past.

At 8/23/12 02:20 AM, Jmayer20 wrote: I do not understand people who say "Oh well its different now. The Founding Fathers had no idea what things would be like. Things are much more dangerous now then they were back then."

I don't think anybody making this argument makes it because the World is more dangerous. They make it because our technology, financial systems, socio-cultural contexts, and numerous other concepts have changed dramatically since then.

The second amendment was made when the fastest guns could fire 2 rounds a minute when used by an expert, not upwards of 2000.

The financial rules were made when the economy was more mercantile, localized, slow, and tied to gold. The economy today hardly resembles the economies of the 18th Century.

At 8/17/12 12:36 AM, lilfozzy wrote: Small government would mean less intrusive Government with less power to control your life, not smaller everything, and the last time I checked the military was not a part of the government

So much fail...The government OWNS the military.

At 8/26/12 11:46 PM, HiryuGouki wrote: So much fail...The government OWNS the military.

quit your one liner posts, plus the function of the military is to protect the people and uphold the constitution if a order is brought up that violates that the military itself can ignore it (within reason) even if it comes from the top of the executive branch.

So much fail...The government OWNS the military.

quit your one liner posts, plus the function of the military is to protect the people and uphold the constitution if a order is brought up that violates that the military itself can ignore it (within reason) even if it comes from the top of the executive branch.

That one liner post was all that was necessary.

At 8/23/12 02:20 AM, Jmayer20 wrote: I do not understand people who say "Oh well its different now. The Founding Fathers had no idea what things would be like. Things are much more dangerous now then they were back then."

I find it outrageous when people say that. Just looking back you can see that is not true. The monarchs of Europe were very hostile to our revolution. For it encouraged rebellion in there country's. Honestly I think the only reason they didn't destroy us before we were on our feet and able to defend our selves is because they were busy fighting Napoleon.

I wasn't saying that. What I meant was that some Founding Fathers intended for slavery to exist in the US, some of them intended for the country to become agrarian based (like Thomas Jefferson) not the industrialized road it eventually took, they even disagreed amongst each other. Taking everything they said and trying to apply it today would leave off some inefficient and inappropriate government and chances are they would've loved to see it changed because they were doing the same thing with the Article of Confederation.

Also there were hostile tribes constantly harassing our borders and destroying our frontier settlements.

They had plenty to fear and yet they did not give up liberty for safety. As any true American should. Now one more point. We are clearly safer now then they were. All we have to fear is some terrorists and the worst they could do to us is blow up a building. Its not like they have the power to conquer us like the monarchs in the past.

On the other hand, today we trust people who go through years of training and have the most up to date equipment to fight our wars and not militias. Back then they expected militias to become the main fighting force of America and while good enough against Indians not so much against anyone else. The amount of hell it would be today is just....

Protect the people, and enforce their laws.

This is as far as national government should go. State government, however, should have more power over things such as economy, commerce, education, etc.

At 8/27/12 11:55 AM, Silverdust wrote: Protect the people, and enforce their laws.

This is as far as national government should go. State government, however, should have more power over things such as economy, commerce, education, etc.

There are numerous problems with giving so much authority to the states. States' actions have ;arge effects on the states around them, yet the States are not accountable to each other. In addition, economies haven't truly been local for well over a century. What laws Maine puts on its wood can have serious effects in California. States also have very limited budgets. By bringing the Federal government in, the programs can get enough neccesary funding to function. Finally, the States have long been the biggest obstacle to rights and freedoms. Without the Federal government enforcing rights nationwide, many states would have dramatically regressive social policies.

If States weren't so insular and selfish, then yes, State supremacy would be good. It would be more fficient and more line up with the locale. Until that point we need a VERY strong Federal government to ensure that the Country and the People are not sacrificed to benefit the will of a local majority.

Also, the biggest obstacle to freedoms of the average citizen come from the States.

Don't mind the last sentence of my previous post. The redundancy was a result of hasty formatting.

At 8/27/12 11:25 AM, HiryuGouki wrote: That one liner post was all that was necessary.

no it doesn't because that stuff isn't allowed in politics section because this isn't general.

At 8/23/12 11:48 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 8/23/12 02:20 AM, Jmayer20 wrote: I do not understand people who say "Oh well its different now. The Founding Fathers had no idea what things would be like. Things are much more dangerous now then they were back then."

I don't think anybody making this argument makes it because the World is more dangerous. They make it because our technology, financial systems, socio-cultural contexts, and numerous other concepts have changed dramatically since then.

Yes, there have been advances. However, does that mean that we should whole-sale discount and discard the principles of the founders? Afterall, they did not hold to a myopic worldview that they had reached the pinnacle of science, technology or civilization. In fact, they were probably more aware of the progress of history than we are today. So I do think many of their principles are timeless and just as relevant today as back then.

The second amendment was made when the fastest guns could fire 2 rounds a minute when used by an expert, not upwards of 2000.

This is a silly argument to make. If the founders could see a modern AK-47 (which only fires 600rds/min...theoretically)and see what was used in the Civil War (when military small arms reached their pinnacle of lethality and potency), they would have no problem with the second amendment.

With the exception of a machine gun (which assault rifles are not), modern military rifles are far less capable of spewing death and dismemberment than the Enefield rifles of the 'War of Northern Aggression' (for you Southern readers).

Finally having an armed populace was a key component of our founder's national security strategy. And even with drones and stealth bombers...it still remains effective. Afterall, the US has the best Navy and special infantry (Marines) as well as the most powerful Air Force. And yet guerillas and insurgents in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan have been able to sow political discord in the US in operations against our military. In Afghanistan not only have they been able to effectively wear down our will to fight...they were able to do the same to the Soviets who had a better army than we have today.

And while yes we did arm the insurgents...they were able to be effective on their own without our direct involvement. So yes...the militia (and no this does NOT mean the national guard) is a key component of our national security even today.

The financial rules were made when the economy was more mercantile, localized, slow, and tied to gold. The economy today hardly resembles the economies of the 18th Century.

True. However, modern political-economic theories that have gotten away from the founder's original intention have proven to be dangerous...just as the founder's believed. Social-engineering and notions of social justice led to bad financial policy making on the part of Clinton at the end of his term. When he allowed FANNIE & FREDDIE to buy sub-prime mortgages he set the fuse on a time-bomb that blew-up 8 years later. (To be fair, Bush would've probably made the same call early in his first term meaning the bomb would be going off on Obama's watch.)

Also, globalization (which was a phenomenon in 1776) means business is moving at a quicker pace than government can keep up with. One of the questions those of us who specialize in International Relations ponder is just how relevant governments are in this new economy. The answer rarely points to calls for more government intervention.

====

One point of my own, if the founders were here today I think they would do one of two things after looking at our electorate.

1) Want us to go back to having our Senators appointed instead of picked by direct election.
2) Strengthen the electoral college.

When I was a GTA grading freshman government tests I was constantly mystified by just how illiterate people are when it comes to how government works. Everything from general ignorance to brainwashed-conspiracy-theories (fill-in-the-blank studies majors were the worst at this final category). So when money plays such a big role is misinforming and miseducating the masses...I think the framers would want the checks on the will people they engineered in the Constitution to be strengthened...not weakened.

Afterall, how many realize:
A) We are a republic and not a democracy?
B) Since Plato's The Republic, democracy has been considered one of the three bad types of government?
C) Checks and balances refer not just to the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of the federal government but also between:
* the states and the federal government and
* the people as a mass and government (of all levels).

I think if people were better informed (or at least informed) about the capabilities and limitations of government...we would be in a lot better social and economic situation.

At 8/22/12 11:23 PM, Warforger wrote: Why would we use the Founder's idea's on military?

Because it makes sense for today's politics, economy and national security.

The Army is still our least signifcant (strategically and security speaking) military branch. A force large enough to occupy the US would be destroyed by our Navy (you couldn't get them over here via air) and air/missile/space attacks would be stopped by our Air Force.

The Air Force is the lead in cyber warfare...the next big emerging threat.

The Army has very little to do in garrison during peacetime, so we're paying soldiers to do busy work.

If we cut the Army by 80% we could expand the manpower of the Navy and Air Force (which could use more personnel) and use that money to help ease US economic woes. I wouldn't use that money to expand social services (healthcare, education, etc), but i is woefully needed in infrastructure programs that the federal government has shown proficiency in making situations better instead of worse (*cough* healthcare *cough* education *cough*).

That said there are things we can cut from the USAF and USN:
* The Joint Strike Fighter (put the avionics in F-16s and develop the F-22 for carrier operations).
* Signifcantly reduce our submarine fleet.

So yeah I would take an axe to the military as well as healthcare and the federal department of education.

Now I don't know too much about the military to be honest, ...

You would've been best served just saying that. :)