The Future of Limited Government

[JeffWartman]

The Future of Limited Government.
By: Jeff Wartman
http://jeffwartman.com/the-future-of...ed-government/
Excerpt:

If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all. - Jacob Hornberger.

Every four years, voters in the United States are given a choice between two major party candidates in the Presidential election. We are often told that either of these candidates are the "mainstream" candidates and if you want your vote to count, you need to choose between either one of the two major party candidates who have a "chance" at "winning".

However, for true supporters of limited government and personal liberty, this is often a choice made in vain. If you truly believe in a limited, decentralized government which protects both economic and personal liberties and rights, during most elections there isn't a major party candidate that will generally fit your values. You have a choice between the Democratic Party, of which too many members wish to violate your economic rights and liberties, and the Republican Party, of which too many members wish to violate your personal rights and liberties. This is not a judgment of individuals in either party. Most individual members are doing what they think is right. This is a judgment on those than run the major parties.

To illustrate my own philosophy of government, I've often used an analogy of a road trip. The route and destination are analogous to the choices you make in life and the level of freedom you possess.

Too many big government Democrats want to drive your car for you. They feel that if they know the route better, it's in your own interest to just sit in the back and let them drive the car for you — they will be able to plan the best route and will be able to get to the destination according to the way they think is best. It doesn't matter if you feel that a different route may be better, because they know how to get there better than you do.

Unfortunately for the American people, some Republicans have deviated from the principles that the party was founded upon, limited government and personal responsibility. Therefore, there is also a part of the Republican Party, a segment of big government Republicans that also want to choose the route and destination for you. Rather than driving the vehicle for you, they will let you sit in the drivers seat and give you the illusion that you are making free choices when in reality the government is in the passenger seat next to you with it's own set of omnipotent pedals and a steering wheel that they can use to override any choice they deem as unacceptable. Like the omnipotent Drivers Ed teacher than can take control of the vehicle at any moment, big government Republicans want you to have the illusion that you are making your own choices but in reality are only holding up a smokescreen. If they don't like your choice, they can (and will) quickly override you. The only difference between big government Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans want to give you an illusion that you will be able to choose your destination, when in fact the level of control is the same. Pro-corporate bailout Republicans fit into this category, and it hurts good Republicans like Jeff Flake and Ron Paul.

Those who advocate limited government offer a different path. Grover Norquist wrote that, "The Leave Us Alone Coalition [Norquist's name for limited government advocates] is not antigovernment. It simply wants properly limited government that plays a role in protecting the life, liberty and property of citizens."

The proper role of government is not to shepherd you to the "correct" decision, government's role is to protect your rights so that you may make your own choices, whether popular or not, good or bad. Therefore, in the context of the above analogy, to an advocate for limited government, the government is not in your car at all. No judgments can be made on either your route or destination because government is not a participant in the road trip. Instead, government is the mechanic, keeping your car running so that you can make your own decisions while driving.

The proper role of government is not to make sure people make good decisions. There is no role for personal morals in government. The real purpose of government is to maintain minimum social order for people to live their lives by their own morals through their own choices. The key word in that sentence is minimum. For too long, authoritarians have used the guise of "social order" to induce massive control and individual rights violations. To protect minimum social order, government exists to protect nothing more than individual rights, with individual rights being defined broadly enough to include the right to do anything until you restrict the freedom of someone else to do what they please — the classic example being that you have the right to swing your fists through the air, but the right to swing your fist ends at the tip of another person's nose. This self-correcting view of rights is the only way to ensure freedom. Some may even question whether government is the proper avenue for the protection of rights. Throughout history, it is rare to find an institution that has as evil a record on protecting rights as government does. However, while government may be a bad mechanism for protecting rights, it's probably least bad way we have, and certainly the only demonstrable way. Barry Goldwater illustrated this point when he stated in his classic Conscience of a Conservative, "All too often we have put men in office who have suggested spending a little more on this, a little more on that, who have proposed a new welfare program, who have thought of another variety of 'security.' We have taken the bait, preferring to put off to another day the recapture of freedom and the restoration of our constitutional system. We have gone the way of many a democratic society that has lost its freedom by persuading itself that if 'the people' rule, all is well."...

 

[bigdaddygtr]

The Future of Limited Government.
By: Jeff Wartman
http://jeffwartman.com/the-future-of...ed-government/
Excerpt:

So, then tell all the "small gov't" people that includes Abortion, Gay Marriage, and illegal gov't wiretapping cause they have no problem letting gov't regulate those

 

[ReillyT]

The Future of Limited Government.
By: Jeff Wartman
http://jeffwartman.com/the-future-of...ed-government/
Excerpt:

In a democracy, isn't the most important freedom the freedom to decide, and then re-decide periodically, what the role of government should be? Provided that the people have freely decided, isn't the "proper" role whatever they choose. Everything else is just an opinion, which each person is free to advocate at the next election. Proper isn't measured by any exogenuous standard.

That isn't to say that there is anything wrong with stating your preference, as you have done. This is quite good, especially if you are in the minority.

 

[KMAN]

So, then tell all the "small gov't" people that includes Abortion, Gay Marriage, and illegal gov't wiretapping cause they have no problem letting gov't regulate those

That's strange... I'm a small government person and I don't think the government should be federally funded abortions... if you want an abortion fine but don't make me pay for it...

It's always funny when non-conservatives know more about conservatism than actual conservatives... but I guess that falls in line with liberals being the smartest people in the world...

 

[xsited1]

The Future of Limited Government...

...died over 100 years ago in the United States.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Under Dwight D. Eisenhower: 8 years/Failed

Under Richard M. Nixon: 5 1/2 years/Failed

Under Ronald Nitwit Reagan: 8 years/Failed

Under George H. W. Bush: 4 years/Failed

Under George W. Bush: 8 years/Failed


Under GOP controlled Congresses in last century: Failed

The Future of Limited Government.
By: Jeff Wartman
http://jeffwartman.com/the-future-of...ed-government/
Excerpt:

 

[Truthmatters]

Its an idea that has little support because it doesnt work.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

That's strange... I'm a small government person and I don't think the government should be federally funded abortions... if you want an abortion fine but don't make me pay for it...

you don't. the government does. I doubt if one whole cent you pay in taxes to the government goes to the cost of a single abortion.

what is strange is your inability to grasp simple concepts and translate them into reality based arguments.

TIt's always funny when non-conservatives know more about conservatism than actual conservatives... but I guess that falls in line with liberals being the smartest people in the world...

what's so funny about your ignorance?

 

[DavidS]

The Future of Limited Government....

Is dead.

 

[amrchaos]

I always wondered about the concept of "limited Government"....
is it really possible for Government to become unlimited?? And is this a concept that is born out of size limitations or on abilities and role of Gov?

Each time I see some one talking about "limited government", they tend to wander right into the concept of cutting social programs. Rarely do I hear these people talk about cutting Military or Intelligence spending.

If the government is oppressive, don't you think that a massive military or invasive spy program would be the first of your concerns?

 

[Bern80]

Under Dwight D. Eisenhower: 8 years/Failed

Under Richard M. Nixon: 5 1/2 years/Failed

Under Ronald Nitwit Reagan: 8 years/Failed

Under George H. W. Bush: 4 years/Failed

Under George W. Bush: 8 years/Failed


Under GOP controlled Congresses in last century: Failed

Socialism that didn't work:

Pilgrims - Failed

USSR - Failed

China - Failing

 

[Tech_Esq]

In a democracy, isn't the most important freedom the freedom to decide, and then re-decide periodically, what the role of government should be? Provided that the people have freely decided, isn't the "proper" role whatever they choose. Everything else is just an opinion, which each person is free to advocate at the next election. Proper isn't measured by any exogenuous standard.

That isn't to say that there is anything wrong with stating your preference, as you have done. This is quite good, especially if you are in the minority.

Actually, no. First, we don't live in a democracy. We have a representative Republic. Second, the social contract we agreed to be governed under is embodied in the Constitution of the United States. That Constitution describes the role of government. It isn't to be decided willy-nilly every time we vote. If we decide we do not like the way things work, a means is provided to change the relationship we have with government.

Where we have erred is that from time to time we allowed occupants of the certain roles in our government to bully other parts into doing things that were contrary to the Constitution. From experience, it appears that once these extra-Constitutional things have been done, it is very difficult if not impossible to get the genie back in the bottle.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

quoting the most relevant parts of your post...

:

-

-

-

you have so little to say here...I've not seen that here before now. it is quite simply: astounding.

I'm gonna pos rep you for this unprecedented achievement...

 

[Paulie]

In a democracy, isn't the most important freedom the freedom to decide, and then re-decide periodically, what the role of government should be? Provided that the people have freely decided, isn't the "proper" role whatever they choose. Everything else is just an opinion, which each person is free to advocate at the next election. Proper isn't measured by any exogenuous standard.

That isn't to say that there is anything wrong with stating your preference, as you have done. This is quite good, especially if you are in the minority.

This is definitely true, although the major argument about such a big government, is how constitutionally legal a lot of it even is.

That's a debate that's probably not sure to ever end. That being the case though, let's just go ahead and grow it bigger and bigger since there's no one, or at least not ENOUGH people, with enough clout to challenge its legality.

 

[Paulie]

you don't. the government does. I doubt if one whole cent you pay in taxes to the government goes to the cost of a single abortion.

True or not, you'd be a fool to assume the government wouldn't use it as a reason to raise your taxes anyway. Every cent they spend is regarded as a reason to increase tax revenue, regardless of where the money spent ultimately comes from. If it's not coming from your tax dollars, it's being printed or borrowed, which is no less detrimental, and ultimately leads to bigger deficits that are used later on down the road as an eventual excuse to raise your taxes ANYWAY.

what is strange is your inability to grasp simple concepts and translate them into reality based arguments.

Apparently, YOU seem to have the inability to grasp the concept, considering that unfounded, knee-jerk response you just gave.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

True or not, you'd be a fool to assume the government wouldn't use it as a reason to raise your taxes anyway. Every cent they spend is regarded as a reason to increase tax revenue, regardless of where the money spent ultimately comes from. If it's not coming from your tax dollars, it's being printed or borrowed, which is no less detrimental, and ultimately leads to bigger deficits that are used later on down the road as an eventual excuse to raise your taxes ANYWAY.


Apparently, YOU seem to have the inability to grasp the concept, considering that unfounded, knee-jerk response you just gave.

It wasn't a knee jerk reaction, your response was. you just assumed I am parroting some lines and I am not. People who cry so loudly about government and taxes are usually upset at other things. It's like a kind of misdirected anger.

I've seen your kind (Massholes) move from Massachusetts to NH and RI and other places they thought were cheap---low taxes---with less government, only to turn around and demand the same level of services and more from the places they moved to: hence the affectionate term...Massholes.


You come across as bitter, angry, resentful and frustrated. Try persuading people we need what you say and see if you get any takers. Stop crying and whining and shouting. It's pathetic in a man/child of your years.

 

[Tech_Esq]

It wasn't a knee jerk reaction, your response was. you just assumed I am parroting some lines and I am not. People who cry so loudly about government and taxes are usually upset at other things. It's like a kind of misdirected anger.

I've seen your kind (Massholes) move from Massachusetts to NH and RI and other places they thought were cheap---low taxes---with less government, only to turn around and demand the same level of services and more from the places they moved to: hence the affectionate term...Massholes.


You come across as bitter, angry, resentful and frustrated. Try persuading people we need what you say and see if you get any takers. Stop crying and whining and shouting. It's pathetic in a man/child of your years.

Are you that mean in real life?

 

[ReillyT]

Actually, no. First, we don't live in a democracy. We have a representative Republic. Second, the social contract we agreed to be governed under is embodied in the Constitution of the United States. That Constitution describes the role of government. It isn't to be decided willy-nilly every time we vote. If we decide we do not like the way things work, a means is provided to change the relationship we have with government.

Where we have erred is that from time to time we allowed occupants of the certain roles in our government to bully other parts into doing things that were contrary to the Constitution. From experience, it appears that once these extra-Constitutional things have been done, it is very difficult if not impossible to get the genie back in the bottle.

Our representative form of government is a democracy.

Within some extreme limits, the Constitution doesn't necessitate any specific role for government. The major constraints that were believed to be part of the Constitution were eviscerated during the 30's and 40's.

The Supreme Court can't be bullied into doing things contrary to the Constitution. According to the Constitution, as it was interpreted by the Constitution in 1803, the Supreme Court is the arbiter of determing what the Constitution means. If it determines something is constitutional, it necessarily is.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Are you that mean in real life?

the truth is: yes. and I have a few battle scars to prove it.

 

[Zoomie1980]

The Future of Limited Government.
By: Jeff Wartman
http://jeffwartman.com/the-future-of...ed-government/
Excerpt:

My father's favorite line -- your freedom extends to where the next person's begins.