Question About Operation of Small Government

As usual, you missed the point, which is this: The Gulf States want the federal government out of their business, yet when a disaster hits they bitch and moan if the Feds don't get there fast enough to suit them and with enough money to pay them so they won't have to face that "personal responsibility" for their own lives they preach so much about.

Autonomy is their mantra, but not their reality. They don't want to pay the taxes, but demand the benefits. They want to impose "personal responsibility" but they are not facing the responsibility of their own slogan "drill baby drill." They invited the oil companies to drill in their waters, they should be responsible for the consequences, by their own standards.

Hell, they're even fighting against the Federal government's attempts to inspect these wells to make sure they are safe.

.

 

It's difficult to even think of small government while maintaining a socialist mindset. Government as originally formed in the U.S. was not with an intent of creating equality of the inhabitants, but freedom to live with equality of opportunity. Of course some would prosper far greater than others, and that too produces opportunity to those who find means of parting the more prosperous from some of their wealth. Products beyond my means of purchasing, do create job opportunities for me and others at the expense of those with far greater wealth. If wealth was distributed equally among all, many jobs would be eliminated as no one would have adequate means to purchase the products produced.

Federal government has become the largest single provider for many projects within each state. The income tax provides the Federal government with what appears to be a large pool of money, and each state attempts to acquire as large a portion as possible from that seemingly bottomless pot. This created a form of redistribution of wealth in its beginning, which allows taxpayers to find solace in the fact that they most often retrieve from the Federal government more than the taxes they provided the Federal government. At the same time many states budget above the taxes collected within the state, and expect the Federal government to bail them out, redistributing wealth from each of the states, and creating even more Federal debt.
At some point in the future, possibly the very near future, the U.S. will experience financial collapse, and perhaps only then will a majority of people recognize that money is not wealth, but only a means of acquiring it. The truly wealthy will not care if they have any of it, and those who may hoard it will find that it has very little value other than big numbers written on pieces of paper.

The masses will then become more or less equals, and Socialism will then move forward to the next step, Communism. I have nothing against Socialism, as long as it is contained within small and separate closely related societies, but find that it is a very poor form of government when imposed upon an entire Nation of people who relate with one another only through trade, and not often directly as individuals. Decisions then have to be made by a central planning group, the Federal government, who knows best, or at least better than any of the individuals who fall under their mandates.

Good luck all, you've allowed your elected politicians to make your beds, and soon you will have to lay in them.

 

When the U.S. government was formed, a standing army was not as necessary as it is today, because any aggressive force would first have to cross an ocean, and the Constitution did provide for the maintenance of a Navy, which would have been the first line of defense while a militia could be gathered together on the mainland. Today, attack from nearly anywhere in the world could arrive quickly, and a Navy alone would be inadequate to provide protection
.
The Constitution has been allowed to become more and more irrelevant in governing today, and much of what has taken place in government over the last century has been ruled Constitutional only by misinterpretation of the Constitution, calling it a living document, rather than by the process of amendment which was intended.

Originally, the Federal governments power was limited by Congress, and taxes could only be apportioned more or less equally on the inhabitants of the states. In the early 20th century the progressive tax was created and afterwards each states representative in the Federal government found it more useful to work diligently in acquiring as much as possible from the progressively acquired tax revenue regardless of which state it was acquired from. In such a situation no one state would likely agree to limiting its slice of pie to less than or equal to the amount acquired from it, and debt accumulated by the Federal government could easily be ignored as it would be spread among the population as a whole, and even better, passed on to generations yet born. Fiscal responsibility was thrown out and continues to be ignored and put off until tomorrow. It's quite easy to ignore tomorrow as we live in the present and tomorrow never comes. It is always today.

 

This is where it becomes irrelevant, government of 1789 has no relevance to government in 2010, and people with a fetish for the founding fathers need to realize this.

 

Your first part is quite correct, however you seem to dwell on the individuals who founded the original government instead of the principles upon which it was founded.
No one wishes to return to 1789, but only wish to stick to the principle that we as individuals have primary authority over our lives and fruits of our labors, not government. While you may be more or perhaps less equal than me in many way ways, neither you nor I or even government has a right to take from you and give to me, or vice versa. If you wish to live in submission to a government that is your business, but many of us do not.

 

Individual

The original government of the US was set up mainly by and in the interests of the ‘squire class’. That is why it was originally an oligarchy, with a limited voting franchise (white men of a certain property qualification) and why slavery continued. It has been argued that the US actually didn’t become a ‘true’ modern democracy until 1965.

As to ‘equality of opportunity’ – are all opportunities open to everyone equally, well the answer to that is no, the opportunities open to someone are often dictated by circumstance, usually linked to wealth.

Thing is that the more unequal a society the more limited are the opportunities open to the majority of the people.

*

I’ll ask why this obsession with ‘small government’ it seems to me to be missing the whole point of governance in which what is important is good governance. Just being ‘small’ doesn’t mean it will be good, in fact if it is so ‘small’ as to be weak it is more likely to govern badly and be under the influence of those with power, I mean Somalia has a small and limited government at the moment but I don’t think anyone would use it as a example of the virtues of such a system.

 

don't even bring up personal responsibility when federal government awarded bp contracts to drill for many years and has been in bed with big oil. and now tries to distance itself from any connection with bp. this is even true during the obama administration. it is YOU who has missed my point. do you honestly think these oil companies would be as powerful as they are without corporate welfare? do you think government subisdisation of big oil ended with clinton and got back up and running during bush 2? hardly

if you hate the south so goddamned much? why not save yourself the trouble and move away?

and besides obama groaned about the federal government needing to responsible for disaster relief during hurricane katrina, but when iowa was fucked by flooding. he all of a sudden as president said it was Iowa's responsibility to take care of it's own problems.

 

The right wing libertarian state is the fantasy of right wing libertarians and cannot and will not exist outside of their deluded imaginations.

Any move toward their brand of libertarianism would inevitably be corrupted by wealth.

The question is why they hold onto these beliefs seeing that any rational person would quickly see the very obvious flaws in their ideas if they just gave them a little thought.

 

While it is common knowledge who it was who formed the Constitution and the Bill of Rights which formed the basis of government of the nation, I don't quite see what you purport to be the interests of the "squire" class you refer to. I don't see how you can describe the original government as an oligarchy without making a comparison to the case of government today being a dictatorship. Certainly slavery existed in the beginning, and it would have been difficult, if not impossible to form a nation without allowance for it. Times have changed, and slavery was eliminated, and many other things as well which often have been for our benefit as a nation. I sometimes wonder if some qualifications should be imposed to determine who can vote, and I know that many Liberals would love to eliminate conservatives and libertarians from being allowed to vote, or even voice an opinion if only they could. If you view Democracy as something we should strive for, then you are a true Socialist.

Opportunities are not a responsibility of government to allot, but something that the individual alone should be free to strive for and achieve according to their own ability. Individual successes and failures have greatest effect on the lives of the individuals, while government failure has effect on all the people and even government success can be devastating to some of the people. Government, and even many of todays voters seem to feel that the rights of people can be doled out in a "one size fits all" fashion.

The most equal society I can think of is the African Bushmen, who don't appear to recognize their limitless opportunities.

Good government doesn't require it to be excessively large. At the same time being 'large' doesn't mean it will be good, but does mean that it will likely be much more costly than a small government.
Considering the population, Somalia has a fairly large government, and one which exercises quite a bit of power over its inhabitants.
No matter what form government takes, there will be those who have and those who have not. The difference we should all be trying to achieve is to allow the individuals based upon their efforts to be the determining factor, and not the government. Government should only become involved in making laws which attempt to eliminate unscrupulous or criminal activities in the dealings between individuals, groups, or businesses.

 

Individual

What is it you don’t understand exactly?

This doesn’t seem to make sense can you please clarify?
An oligarchy is where a minority have control, at the time of the ratification there were property limits to voting and holding office which meant only about 10% of the population (white male population women, black people and natives didn’t get the vote) of the new nation had any chance of voting or gain positions of power. And in many places there were further higher property qualifications for holding office, meaning only the wealthy could stand. I think that could be described as an oligarchy.
*

Slavery was a benefit to your nation?

What type of qualification?

How do you know this, what is your evidence, personally I wouldn’t want anyone’s vote taken away and am very happy to let people voice an opinion.

I’m with Winston Churchill on democracy - “democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”

And Churchill was far from being a socialist.
*

I never said the ‘government’ should allot opportunities, I’m just pointing out that not all opportunities are open to everyone equally, that the opportunities open to someone are often dictated by circumstance, usually linked to wealth. So there isn’t equality of opportunity in an unequal society.
You don’t seem to be disputing that in your reply.

The greatest effect on a person’s life is where and to whom they are born. This can give someone advantages and disadvantages that can effect their whole lives and their possibility of having success or failure, long before they have the independence to take certain actions themselves.

Please clarify within the context of this discussion?

This doesn’t answer the question, I mean what is small and what large, you seem to presume that large is necessarily bad but just being ‘small’ doesn’t mean it will be good either, in fact if it is so ‘small’ as to be weak it is more likely to govern badly and be under the influence of those with power.

You seem to be equating it with cost, I mean are you implying you would prefer bad governance that didn’t cost you much over good governance that cost you a bit more?

Please clarify?

 

But as pointed out people can be born into advantage or disadvantage which is can be the major factor in determining the opportunities open to them.

But that has nothing to do with their effort at all.

To be unscrupulous is to be immoral and contemptuous of what is right or honourable.

Is it moral, right or even honourable for the person born into advantage to retain exclusive rights to advantages it didn’t deserve rather than share them with others who through no blame of their own are disadvantaged?

 

"The original government of the US was set up mainly by and in the interests of the ‘squire class’"

I was hoping you would provide clarification. What controls did the original government exercise over the population that would equate it to an oligarchy?

I suppose you could say it was a benefit to those who imposed it in each and every nation or it would not have occurred. It's history now. The beneficial changes I was referring to are the Constitutional amendments which improved it. I wasn't implying that slavery was desirable, but something that had existed acceptably world wide and therefore not something that could have been eliminated without some effort.

Something to lose, some skin in the game.

I think everyone should be allowed to vote too, but Democracy makes it quite easy for a majority to take from a minority.

Any idea why he didn't say it was the "best" form of government? The U.S. government was formed recognizing the faults of a "pure" democracy.

He also was not an American.

We're not all tall enough to be basketball players, or large enough to be football players, some of us can't carry a tune. No we're not equals at all. Why should we be? We each have to strive to be the best we can at what ever it is we find we are capable of doing.

The equality of opportunity exists only if you take advantage of it, but success is never guaranteed.

While some may avail themselves of advantages of birth, there are many others who don't allow themselves to be hobbled by what many would call disadvantages.

The Bushmen society is one where each member is equal to each other. This is possible only because of what they have available to possess. If you wish to create a nation of equals, first eliminate what exists for the societies members to possess, and assure that what exists belongs to no individual and can be put to use by each and every member equally.

It depends on what you wish government to do. Primarily I view government as necessary as a source of protection, but not protection from my personal judgment in how I live my life. Protection from attack by another nation, or individuals, but how much fat or salt I consume, how I spend the money I earn, etc. goes beyond what I expect or wish of a government.

Cost has a lot to do with it, but I prefer good government which doesn't waste money, and the more money government gets its hands on the more inefficiently it appears to spend it. There is no accountability for the money spent, and with the numbers we use today, millions and even billions unaccounted for are considered insignificant.

You mentioned Somalia, and I have a friend who worked all his life in Africa, Zimbabwe, and Somalia included, who tells me stories about the governments he had to deal with nearly daily no matter where he traveled. Small and limited, you said?

 

Are you claiming that the constitution was not set up mainly by the ‘gentleman’ class? Maybe you should do a bit of research.
Try - Economic Interests and the Adoption of the United States Constitution

http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/mcguire.constitution.us.economic.interests

*
Quote:

This doesn’t seem to make sense can you please clarify?
An oligarchy is where a minority have control, at the time of the ratification there were property limits to voting and holding office which meant only about 10% of the population (white male population women, black people and natives didn’t get the vote) of the new nation had any chance of voting or gain positions of power. And in many places there were further higher property qualifications for holding office, meaning only the wealthy could stand. I think that could be described as an oligarchy.

Sorry did you not read beyond the first sentence? If you didn’t please do so as it answers the question you have asked.
An oligarchy is where a minority have control. The original government of the US was an oligarchy.
*
Quote:

What type of qualification?

What does that mean in plain English?
Again – what type of qualification would you impose on the right to vote?
*
Quote:

How do you know this, what is your evidence, personally I wouldn’t want anyone’s vote taken away and am very happy to let people voice an opinion.

No you don’t - you wonder “if some qualifications should be imposed to determine who can vote”

Which can happen under any other system, so what is your point, that it is somehow worse than if it happens under a republic or dictatorship?
*
Quote:

I’m with Winston Churchill on democracy - “democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”

Oh dear, he is actually saying it is the best form of government, in that it is better than all the rest, the thing is that every system has its problems.
The US government was formed as an oligarchy it was forced gradually into a semblance of democracy (only finally becoming a modern democracy in 1965).
I don’t think it is possible to have a ‘pure’ democracy and I can’t think of any instance of it in history.
*
Quote:

And Churchill was far from being a socialist.

And this means what – that he wasn’t allowed to give an opinion on something, are only Americans allowed to do that?
*
Quote:
*

I never said the ‘government’ should allot opportunities, I’m just pointing out that not all opportunities are open to everyone equally, that the opportunities open to someone are often dictated by circumstance, usually linked to wealth. So there isn’t equality of opportunity in an unequal society.

This is a bogus reply unless you are arguing that the ability to be born into financial advantage is genetic, that some groups or races have a genetic disposition to be richer than others?
Please stop playing silly buggers and actually address what’s been said.

But as pointed out people can be born into advantage or disadvantage which can be the major factor in determining the opportunities open to them and that has nothing to do with their effort or capabilities at all.

*
Quote:
You don’t seem to be disputing that in your reply.

But as pointed out people can be born into advantage or disadvantage which can be the major factor in determining the opportunities open to them and that has nothing to do with their effort at all.

So there can be no ‘equality of opportunity’ in an unequal society.
*
Quote:

The greatest effect on a person’s life is where and to whom they are born. This can give someone advantages and disadvantages that can effect their whole lives and their possibility of having success or failure, long before they have the independence to take certain actions themselves.

But that just highlights that some are hobbled compared with others it isn’t a equal race and that just backs up what I’ve been saying there can be no ‘equality of opportunity’ in an unequal society. So anyone that claims there is lying.
*
Quote:

Please clarify within the context of this discussion?

I’m still not sure where you are going with this?
“first eliminate what exists for the societies members to possess” what do you mean that the result of a more equal society is one in which people would have little? Can you back that up?
“and assure that what exists belongs to no individual and can be put to use by each and every member equally” Some things are, a highway is open to everyone equally.
But what has this to do with the existence or not of ‘equality of opportunity’?
*
Quote:


This doesn’t answer the question, I mean what is small and what large, you seem to presume that large is necessarily bad but just being ‘small’ doesn’t mean it will be good either, in fact if it is so ‘small’ as to be weak it is more likely to govern badly and be under the influence of those with power.

As pointed out before protection is a vague term that is open to interpretation.
Protection from harm, protection from exploitation, protection from hardship, protection in sickness

I mean if someone is born into power and wealth which gives them protection from exploitation and hardship and another is born into poverty which opens them to exploitation and hardship, then there is in that society an inequality of protection.

The society is benefiting one over the other and if the ones getting the greater benefit are few compared to the others then that society is benefiting the few and not the many?

*
Quote:

You seem to be equating it with cost, I mean are you implying you would prefer bad governance that didn’t cost you much over good governance that cost you a bit more?

This just means you concede that it doesn’t actually matter how big a government is the most important thing is that it governs well and that your only argument against ‘big’ government is not evidence based but all down to your personnel bias and prejudice.
Quote:

Please clarify?

So know someone that claimed to have worked in Somalia and they told you that the Somali government had ‘quite a bit of power over’ the inhabitants of that country?

Did you ever check to see if they were talking bollocks?

Here is a recent description of the country -“Somalia hasn't had a fully functioning government in nearly two decades. The government controls just a few blocks of the capital city Mogadishu. Militants are trying to overthrow that government and set up a strict Islamist regime. The insurgents, called al-Shabab, have staged a month-long offensive that has included suicide bombings.” (NPR)

 

Individual

To be unscrupulous is to be immoral and contemptuous of what is right or honourable.

Is it moral, right or even honourable for the person born into advantage to retain exclusive rights to advantages it didn’t earn rather than share them with others who through no blame of their own are disadvantaged?

 

Why the fetish for fonts?

1. I said "we know who wrote the constitution", and to what ends do you find that the "original" governing class put their oligarchy to use?

2. I understand what an oligarchy is, but don't see how you find it exercised over the people or to the advantage of the governing class originally.

3. You don't know what having skin in the game means? A question, if everyone paid the same tax rate no matter how much they earned, how easy would it be for government to raise taxes? If only the wealthiest paid taxes, how easy is it to raise taxes? Who turns down something that is free?

4. I think all should be allowed to vote, but at the same time should face equal consequences related to how they vote.

5. The basis of a constitutional republican form of government, NOT to be confused with the republican party, was to make it more difficult for a majority to exert control over a minority.

6. Democracy is great when you side with the group numbering greater than 50%. But even then it can be an issue by issue basis, as government has become involved in so many areas of life.

7. Churchill had every right to his opinions, but no rights to have a vote in American government. Notice Obama seems to have booted him, "his image", from the White House.
Obviously we're not all clones of each other, therefore we need to recognize what opportunities we can avail ourselves of and concentrate on those we can benefit from. Many appear to limit that choice to government handouts, and never look any further.

8. I'm simply saying that government should not be in the business of equalizing anything, on an individual or group by group basis.

9. Accept the facts. We are not all equals. We have to do the best with what we have, both mentally and physically. If you dwell on your disadvantages, most likely you will fail to recognize any advantages that exist.

10. All societies are unequal. Equality in every facet of life can not be provided, nor should it be. Equality as you define it appears to be simply a desire to have envy lessened. I think the Declaration of Independence said it well enough, "created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights", noting Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness". Note the use of the word "pursuit".

11. If you have needs, wants or desires, just make an effort to achieve them, don't rely on others to provide them or you will most certainly be disappointed. If you fail to achieve your desires, don't blame others, perhaps you just didn't pursue them diligently.

12. Absolute equality just doesn't exist, okay? Yes we can all use the highways, just thank those who paid for them.
I don't really think you need an explanation of what is small and what is large.
Small government is one in which it interferes only minimally and where necessary in the daily lives of those who it governs. Large government is one in which it continually looks for areas where it can attempt to apply controls that those who govern feel are necessary, and each additional government program or agency requires additional funding. The more say government has, the less say the governed have, although the governed are the ones who must pay the bills.
Equating with cost, I would prefer good, and efficient government at the lowest cost possible in preference to large, and inefficient government at the highest cost possible. It's not always true that you get what you pay for.

13. I've conceded nothing, except that there should be more power to the local governments and less to a central government, people should be allowed to govern themselves for the most part. Government should flow from the bottom, the people, upward, through local, state, and lastly federal government.

14. Government in Somalia is broken up into many distinct, but powerful factions, so there is plenty of government just not coming from a single source. The rules may change depending upon who you encounter, so my friend tells me, and government there is not primarily for protection of the inhabitants or travelers.

14.

 

It is not moral or immoral, right or wrong, honorable or dishonorable, but I would call it immoral, wrong, and dishonorable to take away from those who have inherited something that someone before them had earned and passed on to them. Perhaps if we are to speak of blame, it should be the parents of the disadvantaged who should bear it, not the parents of the advantaged who were the more responsible persons.
Humans appear to reach puberty earlier today while maturity appears to take much longer than in the past, in fact many never do acquire it.

 

individual

From what you are saying I don’t think you do understand what an oligarchy is and I don’t think you have read the article I linked to. Here it is again-

Economic Interests and the Adoption of the United States Constitution

http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/mcguire.constitution.us.economic.interests
And something else along the same lines –
A Constitution for the Few: Looking Back to the Beginning

http://www.iefd.org/articles/constitution_for_the_few.php

Gambling and prostitution its seems -)

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/17/opinion/17iht-edsafire.2839605.html?_r=1

I’ll ask again - what type of qualification would you impose on the right to vote?

It seems to me you can’t have both, you can’t wish for a qualification on the right to vote and also want everyone to vote.

But you can have a constitutional republic that is a democracy, you can have a constitutional republic that is an oligarchy, you can even have a constitutional republican that is a dictatorship.

The Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic was a constitutional republic (a republic with a constitution).

Maybe you should do a bit of research.

Fact is that being a republic with a constitution does not automatically stop that state from persecuting minorities, (think of black people, native Americans or communists in the US).

And it can be exactly the same in a constitutional republic, I mean in a republic with a constitution that happens to be an oligarchy it would be ‘great’ to be part of the minority with power.

Did I at any point suggest Churchill should have had a vote in American government?

I mean in the history of ridiculous replies that is a dousy.

Why was it important to you that he wasn’t American when I quoted him?

Again this doesn’t address what I’ve said - The greatest effect on a person’s life is where and to whom they are born. This can give someone advantages and disadvantages that can affect their whole lives and their possibility of having success or failure, long before they have the independence to take certain actions themselves. Yes someone can avail themselves of the opportunities but the opportunities to avail themselves of will to a large extent be dictated by things that were out of their control.
In other words there cannot be ‘equality of opportunity’ in an unequal society.

You’ve said that you believe government should protect people.

Protection from harm, protection from exploitation, protection from hardship, protection in sickness

I mean if someone is born into power and wealth which gives them protection from exploitation and hardship and another is born into poverty which opens them to exploitation and hardship, then there is in that society an inequality of protection.

Once again are you claiming that the ability to be born into financial advantage is genetic?
I mean two people could be born with identical mental and physical capabilities but born into advantage and disadvantage which would have an impact on the opportunities that would be open to them.
They can both do their best but one will still have the advantages and the other the disadvantages.

Again this doesn’t address what’s been said it’s a misdirection – having greater equality does not curtail the pursuit of happiness, in might even improve it, so what is your point?

Again this doesn’t address the issue of receiving advantages that were not earned, in fact it seems to imply that you disapprove of advantages given to people that they didn’t own – which would back up what I’m saying.

You really only seem able to think in absolutes – ‘pure democracy’ – ‘absolute equality’….

Can you please address what’s been said?

 

You seem to have a strange view of justice you seem to think that people should suffer for things they had nothing to do with.

No person can choose who they are going to be born to, so the baby cannot be blamed for been born into riches or poverty, it can’t even be blame for the decisions of the parents to have it.

But by the same token neither can if be commended.

A child born into poverty did nothing to deserve the disadvantages associated with it but also the child born into wealth did nothing to deserve the advantages it receives.

The question then arises is it justified for the person born into advantage to retain exclusive rights to advantages it didn’t deserve rather than share them with others who through no blame of their own are disadvantaged.

 

1. Life isn't fair. Is justice served by allowing the poor to steal from the rich?

People suffer every day for reasons beyond their control, but at the same time not caused by another, which may not seem fair but that doesn't give government or anyone else a right to hold another or others responsible.

2. While not blaming the baby for being born to poor parents, you do find it appropriate to place blame on the wealthy for the event?

3. I do commend parents who take responsibility by having children that they can afford to provide for.

4. Much of what occurs in life is not deserved, both good and bad. So what?

5. The answer to your question is a simple YES. Is this what is taught in school today? Dwell on what others have that you lack and feel resentment and anger if they don't share it with you? Or government should do more to take from those who you feel have more than they need or more than you feel they deserve? Persons who dwell primarily on what others have or deserve are likely to receive, or as the case may be not receive, exactly what they deserve.