Is it possible to want a small federal gov't and have these views?

[RDD_1210]

So government should have nothing to do with education, welfare, or health but should be overseeing marriage, language censorship and horticulture? Is that what you're saying. I just want to be clear.

In a single word.... YES.

Let's now see if I can explain to you WHY that is.....

I believe that the system and style of Government which the United States was intended to run under (not the one it currently uses) requires a culture of morals, values, and ideals which must be understood, accepted, and embraced by the vast majority of the citizenry in order to function properly. To that end, the Government is the only organization which can ensure that those morals, values, and ideals are rigourously maintained throughout the entirety of society.

Now before you go off on a "theocracy" rant; I believe that religion has NO PLACE in the public sphere of government or society. It should be a wholely PRIVATE undertaking. However, I also believe that MORALITY supercedes all religion.

So then you would be opposed to the government run military? Since that has nothing to do with morals?

 

[Dr.Drock]

Someone who smokes a blunt once should be killed? Well I guess that'd be a quick way to solve the overpopulation problem.

Possession of an illegal substance which alters brain chemistry to create a state of mind where the individual is not capable of making good judgements is a serious moral issue so far as I am concerned. I would outlaw alcohol and tobacco products and make a large percentage of over-the-counter medication, prescription only, as well.

Then again I'm the guy who got a college roommate expelled for having alcohol and marijuana in our dorm room.

Caffeine alters someone's state of mind as well, are people who drink pepsi and people who take excedrin going to face your firing squad and subsequently burn in hell as well?

What about hypnotists and people who agree to be hypnotized? Death+hell?

 

[Dr.Drock]

1.) Wanting government to regulate the plants you grow on your property.

2.) Wanting government to regulate and filter every word on every form of media.

3.) Wanting government to regulate every marriage that a church wants to recognize.

What say you? Seems to me these sound like principles of a big government.

What I think you are missing Doc is that while many of us do want some version of those things done by the Government there are a whole lot of things that the Government currently does that we would do away with.... Education, Welfare, Foreign Entanglements, HealthCare, etc.... In our minds it's much more a matter of re-focusing the Government on the small number of things that it SHOULD be focused on rather than on the broad brush of things that it currently deals with; most of which we believe are UnConstitutional to begin with.

Yep.

We had education prior to 1979, when the department of education was created.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

1.) Wanting government to regulate the plants you grow on your property.

2.) Wanting government to regulate and filter every word on every form of media.

3.) Wanting government to regulate every marriage that a church wants to recognize.



What say you? Seems to me these sound like principles of a big government.

Well as a conservative, I don't give a shit what you grow on your property, I change channels if I don't like what's on and I think marriage should be dealt with at the local level so I don't know what the hell you are trying to imply.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

1.) Wanting government to regulate the plants you grow on your property.

2.) Wanting government to regulate and filter every word on every form of media.

3.) Wanting government to regulate every marriage that a church wants to recognize.



What say you? Seems to me these sound like principles of a big government.

Nope those are nanny state positions
The government has no business in the marriage game , only civil union permits should be issued.

 

[Dr.Drock]

1.) Wanting government to regulate the plants you grow on your property.

2.) Wanting government to regulate and filter every word on every form of media.

3.) Wanting government to regulate every marriage that a church wants to recognize.



What say you? Seems to me these sound like principles of a big government.

Well as a conservative, I don't give a shit what you grow on your property, I change channels if I don't like what's on and I think marriage should be dealt with at the local level so I don't know what the hell you are trying to imply.

I'm not implying anything, it's a question, one you answered and showed that you have a true principled stance on small government with regards to the mentioned items.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

1.) Wanting government to regulate the plants you grow on your property.

2.) Wanting government to regulate and filter every word on every form of media.

3.) Wanting government to regulate every marriage that a church wants to recognize.



What say you? Seems to me these sound like principles of a big government.

Well as a conservative, I don't give a shit what you grow on your property, I change channels if I don't like what's on and I think marriage should be dealt with at the local level so I don't know what the hell you are trying to imply.

I'm not implying anything, it's a question, one you answered and showed that you have a true principled stance on small government with regards to the mentioned items.

Fair enough!

 

[Anachronism]

So then you would be opposed to the government run military? Since that has nothing to do with morals?

Not at all. Morality isn't the ONLY responsibility of Government. National Defense is most definitely a legitimate Governmental concern. However it would be National Defense, not nation building, stationing troops all across the globe, etc...

Caffeine alters someone's state of mind as well, are people who drink pepsi and people who take excedrin going to face your firing squad and subsequently burn in hell as well?

I would suggest that caffeine should be regulated significantly more than it is now. Abuse of it would lead down the same road as any other drug.

What about hypnotists and people who agree to be hypnotized? Death+hell?

Hypnotists would be required to be licensed and regulated similar to other mental health professionals.

 

[Granny]

They are big government. Government has been regulating what farmers plant or do not plant for decades.

Political correctness has curtailed just about all free speech - unless, of course, that speech is in agreement with what the left says is o.k.

Going on the left's definition of "separation of church and state," the government should not have any say whatsoever in anything to do with religious rites.

In fact, government should not be doing a hell of a lot of stuff that it does.

Smaller government is just that: smaller, way less intrusive in private lives than it currently is.

 

[RDD_1210]

So then you would be opposed to the government run military? Since that has nothing to do with morals?

Not at all. Morality isn't the ONLY responsibility of Government. National Defense is most definitely a legitimate Governmental concern. However it would be National Defense, not nation building, stationing troops all across the globe, etc...

Well then how do you justify the government being involved in national defense but according to you should not be involved in ensuring the general welfare of the people? What makes one ok, but not the other?

 

[Dr.Drock]

So then you would be opposed to the government run military? Since that has nothing to do with morals?

Not at all. Morality isn't the ONLY responsibility of Government. National Defense is most definitely a legitimate Governmental concern. However it would be National Defense, not nation building, stationing troops all across the globe, etc...

Caffeine alters someone's state of mind as well, are people who drink pepsi and people who take excedrin going to face your firing squad and subsequently burn in hell as well?

I would suggest that caffeine should be regulated significantly more than it is now. Abuse of it would lead down the same road as any other drug.

What about hypnotists and people who agree to be hypnotized? Death+hell?

Hypnotists would be required to be licensed and regulated similar to other mental health professionals.

Aye aye aye, alright, thanks for your input.

 

[Dr.Drock]

They are big government. Government has been regulating what farmers plant or do not plant for decades.

Political correctness has curtailed just about all free speech - unless, of course, that speech is in agreement with what the left says is o.k.

Going on the left's definition of "separation of church and state," the government should not have any say whatsoever in anything to do with religious rites.

In fact, government should not be doing a hell of a lot of stuff that it does.

Smaller government is just that: smaller, way less intrusive in private lives than it currently is.

I don't really believe in this "left" and "right" stuff but I heard a lot more complaining about the Janet Jackson super bowl incident from the "right" and I hear a lot more of the O'Reilly types demanding no cuss word ever be said in any form of media and no part of the epidermis be shown in any version of visual media.

 

[Anachronism]

Aye aye aye, alright, thanks for your input.

You're welcome. Glad to be of assistance. Just let me know if you need further clarification in the future.

 

[RDD_1210]

So then you would be opposed to the government run military? Since that has nothing to do with morals?

Not at all. Morality isn't the ONLY responsibility of Government. National Defense is most definitely a legitimate Governmental concern. However it would be National Defense, not nation building, stationing troops all across the globe, etc...

Well then how do you justify the government being involved in national defense but according to you should not be involved in ensuring the general welfare of the people? What makes one ok, but not the other?

Nothing?

 

[Anachronism]

Well then how do you justify the government being involved in national defense but according to you should not be involved in ensuring the general welfare of the people? What makes one ok, but not the other?

Sorry for the delay. Missed your posting yesterday....

What makes the difference is Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution; which grants the Government powers related to the military but has NO SPECIFIC MANDATE for ANY form of social welfare.

 

[RDD_1210]

Well then how do you justify the government being involved in national defense but according to you should not be involved in ensuring the general welfare of the people? What makes one ok, but not the other?

Sorry for the delay. Missed your posting yesterday....

What makes the difference is Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution; which grants the Government powers related to the military but has NO SPECIFIC MANDATE for ANY form of social welfare.

You sure about that?

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"

 

[Anachronism]

You sure about that?

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"

As certain as humanly possible. You have simply quoted the single most willfully misinterpreted section of any document in the history of this country, if not mankind in total.

The problem is that you failed to comprehend the four words which come directly after the phrase you placed in bold.....

of the United States.

Not.... of The People.
Not.... of the Citizenry.

of the United States.

The preceding phrase modifies this one, making the requirement to provide for the common defense and general welfare of "The United States"; which is a sovereign entity, not the people or citizens thereof. Oh, and NO it's not the same thing by any stretch of the imagination.

For Example..... It might be in the best interests of a large segment of the citizenry of the United States for the country to allow a group like the United Nations to oversee certain legal proceedings with their much more relaxed standards and greater desire for social justice. However it would not be in the best interest of The United States, nor would it promote the common defense or general welfare of The Country to allow such a thing to happen. To that end it would be wholely both stupid and unConstitutional to do so.

I really hope that was simple and basic enough for you to understand. Considering your inability to comprehend the clause you mentioned, I'm not so sure it will be, but I can live in hope.

 

[RDD_1210]

You sure about that?

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"

As certain as humanly possible. You have simply quoted the single most willfully misinterpreted section of any document in the history of this country, if not mankind in total.

The problem is that you failed to comprehend the four words which come directly after the phrase you placed in bold.....

of the United States.

Not.... of The People.
Not.... of the Citizenry.

of the United States.

The preceding phrase modifies this one, making the requirement to provide for the common defense and general welfare of "The United States"; which is a sovereign entity, not the people or citizens thereof. Oh, and NO it's not the same thing by any stretch of the imagination.

For Example..... It might be in the best interests of a large segment of the citizenry of the United States for the country to allow a group like the United Nations to oversee certain legal proceedings with their much more relaxed standards and greater desire for social justice. However it would not be in the best interest of The United States, nor would it promote the common defense or general welfare of The Country to allow such a thing to happen. To that end it would be wholely both stupid and unConstitutional to do so.

I really hope that was simple and basic enough for you to understand. Considering your inability to comprehend the clause you mentioned, I'm not so sure it will be, but I can live in hope.

You might have a point if the Constitution didn't lay out what the United States is about in the very first words of the document.

"We the People of the United States.."

The United States is made up of "the people" and providing for the Defense and general welfare of those people is mentioned in the very same breath in the very section you quoted. You can try and twist it all you want but it's just not working.

 

[Anachronism]

You might have a point if the Constitution didn't lay out what the United States is about in the very first words of the document.

"We the People of the United States.."

The United States is made up of "the people" and providing for the Defense and general welfare of those people is mentioned in the very same breath in the very section you quoted. You can try and twist it all you want but it's just not working.

I completely and totally DISAGREE. In fact the phrase you quoted separates the two entities specifically. By noting that the document is being written by "the People" OF "the United States" the authors have separated the two entities from each other.

The two entities are intertwined and co-dependent, but they are not necessarily always the same thing. Nor should they be. That's a lot of the problem with our political atmosphere in this country right now.... we have too many politicians who are more interested in their Constituents interests than in the Constitutional interests that they have sworn to protect and defend.

 

[Agit8r]

it is possible to favor limited government and also THESE views:

"legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree is a politic measure, and a practicable one. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise."

-- Thomas Jefferson; from letter to James Madison (October 28, 1785)


"Of all occupations those are the least desirable in a free state which produce the most servile dependence of one class of citizens on another class. This dependence must increase as the mutuality of wants is diminished. Where the wants on one side are the absolute necessaries and on the other are neither absolute necessaries, nor result from the habitual economy of life, but are the mere caprices of fancy, the evil is in its extreme"

-- James Madison, 'Fashion' National Gazette, 1792


"The great object should be to combat the evil: 1. By establishing a political equality among all; 2. By witholding unnecessary opportunities from a few to increase the inequality of property by an immoderate, and especially an unmerited, accumulation of riches; 3. By the silent operation of laws which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity and raise extreme indigence towards a state of comfort; 4. By abstaining from measures which operate differently on different interests, and particularly such as favor one interest at the expense of another; 5. By making one party a check on the other so far as the existence of parties cannot be prevented nor their views accommodated. If this is not the language of reason, it is that of republicanism."

-- James Madison; from 'Parties' (1792)


"The earth is given as a common stock for man to labor and live on. If for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be provided to those excluded from the appropriation."

-- Thomas Jefferson; letter to James Madison (October 28, 1785)


It is a position not to be controverted that the earth, in its natural, cultivated state was, and ever would have continued to be, the common property of the human race. In that state every man would have been born to property. He would have been a joint life proprietor with rest in the property of the soil, and in all its natural productions, vegetable and animal."

-- Thomas Paine; 'Agrarian Justice'


"Admitting that any annual sum, say, for instance, one thousand pounds, is necessary or sufficient for the support of a family, consequently the second thousand is of the nature of a luxury, the third still more so, and by proceeding on, we shall at last arrive at a sum that may not improperly be called a prohibitable luxury. It would be impolitic to set bounds to property acquired by industry, and therefore it is right to place the prohibition beyond the probable acquisition to which industry can extend; but there ought to be a limit to property or the accumulation of it by bequest."

-- Thomas Paine, 'Rights of Man, Part the Second' 1792

just sayin'