What is "limited government?"

[newpolitics]

You never found it rigorously defined? Is that because you have your head so far up your ass you can't see anything? The defnition is so well known, and so rigorous, that it actually has its own Wiki entry. It has nothing to do with money, or population, it is all about limiting the government so that it doesn't have the power to lock people up without cause or recourse.

Maybe, if you understood that concept, we wouldn't have people begging the OAS to help free American citizens held without charges.

Family of Indefinitely Detained American Seeks International Help - Reason 24/7 : Reason.com

What is the quantitative measurement of a limited government? Maybe if you actually read through the thread, you wouldn't be so aloof.

I have already read through the wiki entry on limited government, and what is clear, is that it has a qualitative definition, not a quantitative one. However, sometime between the inception of our country and now, the term has come to include a qualitative definition, and I want to know what that quantity is. It is the conservative mantra that we need a "smaller government." I assume that it is modern conservatives, after Reagan, who have conflated the terms "limited" and "small." I am not so concerned with how limited government was originally defined, although that is helpful to know, but how it is defined and referred to today, as having a quantitative aspect, at least rhetorically.

Do you have a problem using the English language? There are two types of governments in the world, tyranny and limited. Do you need a quantitative measurement of tyrannies before you can grasp the concept of not wanting to live under one?

It is idiots that insist that government is about doing things for people that insist that government be quantified. They do this because they believe that government has its own money, and that it exist to protect people from their own stupidity. The rest of us just want to limit your power to interfere with our lives, which is, and always will be, about quality.

Dude, you are a fucking moron. If you can't apply half your brain to this conversation, then just leave.

It is CONSERVATIVES who talk about a quantitatively limited government, in other words, a SMALL government. This implies a specific number which must be defined as small, yet I haven't seen it. Have you? If so, please share. In other words, I am merely responding to the rhetoric made by conservatives, and asking for definitions which need to exist. If you don't a definition for "small government," then stop saying it.

 

[bucs90]

Canada is NOT a "limited" or "small" government.

Last I checked, Canada is NOT a tyranny.

The premise that a government is either small/limited, OR a tyranny, and no other optoin, is wrong.

 

[bucs90]

The United States is NOT a small/limited government. And we are NOT a tyranny.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What is the quantitative measurement of a limited government? Maybe if you actually read through the thread, you wouldn't be so aloof.

I have already read through the wiki entry on limited government, and what is clear, is that it has a qualitative definition, not a quantitative one. However, sometime between the inception of our country and now, the term has come to include a qualitative definition, and I want to know what that quantity is. It is the conservative mantra that we need a "smaller government." I assume that it is modern conservatives, after Reagan, who have conflated the terms "limited" and "small." I am not so concerned with how limited government was originally defined, although that is helpful to know, but how it is defined and referred to today, as having a quantitative aspect, at least rhetorically.

Do you have a problem using the English language? There are two types of governments in the world, tyranny and limited. Do you need a quantitative measurement of tyrannies before you can grasp the concept of not wanting to live under one?

It is idiots that insist that government is about doing things for people that insist that government be quantified. They do this because they believe that government has its own money, and that it exist to protect people from their own stupidity. The rest of us just want to limit your power to interfere with our lives, which is, and always will be, about quality.

Dude, you are a fucking moron. If you can't apply half your brain to this conversation, then just leave.

It is CONSERVATIVES who talk about a quantitatively limited government, in other words, a SMALL government. This implies a specific number which must be defined as small, yet I haven't seen it. Have you? If so, please share. In other words, I am merely responding to the rhetoric made by conservatives, and asking for definitions which need to exist. If you don't a definition for "small government," then stop saying it.

Wrong, it is libertarians and liberals who talk about limited government. Conservatives are entirely happy to expand the power of government, just like progressives, they just want to apply the government power differently. Just to point out the obvious here, Republicans are, on the whole, not conservative. If they were Boehner wouldn't be purging conservatives who disagree with the power structure of the party from committees. would he?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Canada is NOT a "limited" or "small" government.

Last I checked, Canada is NOT a tyranny.

The premise that a government is either small/limited, OR a tyranny, and no other optoin, is wrong.

There is a difference between small and limited. Canada has a limited government in that it has a Constitution which limits the power of the government.

Are you going to try to tell me Canada doesn't have a constitution which guarantees rights to the people of Canada?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The United States is NOT a small/limited government. And we are NOT a tyranny.

Damn, you are dumber that the OP.

 

[newpolitics]

Do you have a problem using the English language? There are two types of governments in the world, tyranny and limited. Do you need a quantitative measurement of tyrannies before you can grasp the concept of not wanting to live under one?

It is idiots that insist that government is about doing things for people that insist that government be quantified. They do this because they believe that government has its own money, and that it exist to protect people from their own stupidity. The rest of us just want to limit your power to interfere with our lives, which is, and always will be, about quality.

Dude, you are a fucking moron. If you can't apply half your brain to this conversation, then just leave.

It is CONSERVATIVES who talk about a quantitatively limited government, in other words, a SMALL government. This implies a specific number which must be defined as small, yet I haven't seen it. Have you? If so, please share. In other words, I am merely responding to the rhetoric made by conservatives, and asking for definitions which need to exist. If you don't a definition for "small government," then stop saying it.

Wrong, it is libertarians and liberals who talk about limited government. Conservatives are entirely happy to expand the power of government, just like progressives, they just want to apply the government power differently. Just to point out the obvious here, Republicans are, on the whole, not conservative. If they were Boehner wouldn't be purging conservatives who disagree with the power structure of the party from committees. would he?

So, you're saying that conservatives, especially after Reagan and his famous "government is the problem" speech, didn't adopt, as a centerpiece to their ideology, the notion of a "small, limited government"?

I'm not sure what you've been smoking, but it should be weaponized.

 

[Politico]

Not defined? You might want to read the Constitution.

 

[Darkwind]

What is the quantitative measurement of a limited government? Maybe if you actually read through the thread, you wouldn't be so aloof.

I have already read through the wiki entry on limited government, and what is clear, is that it has a qualitative definition, not a quantitative one. However, sometime between the inception of our country and now, the term has come to include a qualitative definition, and I want to know what that quantity is. It is the conservative mantra that we need a "smaller government." I assume that it is modern conservatives, after Reagan, who have conflated the terms "limited" and "small." I am not so concerned with how limited government was originally defined, although that is helpful to know, but how it is defined and referred to today, as having a quantitative aspect, at least rhetorically.

Do you have a problem using the English language? There are two types of governments in the world, tyranny and limited. Do you need a quantitative measurement of tyrannies before you can grasp the concept of not wanting to live under one?

It is idiots that insist that government is about doing things for people that insist that government be quantified. They do this because they believe that government has its own money, and that it exist to protect people from their own stupidity. The rest of us just want to limit your power to interfere with our lives, which is, and always will be, about quality.

Dude, you are a fucking moron. If you can't apply half your brain to this conversation, then just leave.

It is CONSERVATIVES who talk about a quantitatively limited government, in other words, a SMALL government. This implies a specific number which must be defined as small, yet I haven't seen it. Have you? If so, please share. In other words, I am merely responding to the rhetoric made by conservatives, and asking for definitions which need to exist. If you don't a definition for "small government," then stop saying it.

Really?

The classic liberal is a person who believes that government(s) restrict freedoms capriciously and for the enrichment and added power to the ruling class.

The classic liberal was what our founding fathers were.

They were opposed to powerful government, willing to take from the citizen in order to maintain the sovereign of their (the ruling class) power.

Limited government is not about size, (though that plays a part in discussions of economics) but about restrictions. However,the restrictions are not placed upon the citizen, but upon the government itself. The reason that we even discuss enumerated powers is because the framers of our form of government envisioned that government tightly caged, bound by chains and severely restricted in what power it may exercise. The powers they were permitted were enumerated, clearly defined and very limited. All other power was forbidden to the government.

Read the 9th and 10th Amendments, and the writings of the founders.

However, do everyone a favor and drop the meaningless labels that we apply to each other in today's contexts......

The Classical Liberal was anti-government and pro freedom.

 

[bucs90]

Not defined? You might want to read the Constitution.

The Constitution does NOT allow for:

- The FBI, DEA, ATF or Border Patrol
- FEMA
- Federal aid to state and city police and fire departments in times of disaster

Are you ready to do away with ALL of the above? The Constitution doesn't allow it.

 

[newpolitics]

Do you have a problem using the English language? There are two types of governments in the world, tyranny and limited. Do you need a quantitative measurement of tyrannies before you can grasp the concept of not wanting to live under one?

It is idiots that insist that government is about doing things for people that insist that government be quantified. They do this because they believe that government has its own money, and that it exist to protect people from their own stupidity. The rest of us just want to limit your power to interfere with our lives, which is, and always will be, about quality.

Dude, you are a fucking moron. If you can't apply half your brain to this conversation, then just leave.

It is CONSERVATIVES who talk about a quantitatively limited government, in other words, a SMALL government. This implies a specific number which must be defined as small, yet I haven't seen it. Have you? If so, please share. In other words, I am merely responding to the rhetoric made by conservatives, and asking for definitions which need to exist. If you don't a definition for "small government," then stop saying it.

Really?

The classic liberal is a person who believes that government(s) restrict freedoms capriciously and for the enrichment and added power to the ruling class.

The classic liberal was what our founding fathers were.

They were opposed to powerful government, willing to take from the citizen in order to maintain the sovereign of their (the ruling class) power.

Limited government is not about size, (though that plays a part in discussions of economics) but about restrictions. However,the restrictions are not placed upon the citizen, but upon the government itself. The reason that we even discuss enumerated powers is because the framers of our form of government envisioned that government tightly caged, bound by chains and severely restricted in what power it may exercise. The powers they were permitted were enumerated, clearly defined and very limited. All other power was forbidden to the government.

Read the 9th and 10th Amendments, and the writings of the founders.

However, do everyone a favor and drop the meaningless labels that we apply to each other in today's contexts......

The Classical Liberal was anti-government and pro freedom.

And, we are no longer living the times in which the "classical liberal" existed. This is irrelevant anyways. I am simply going by what I observe today: conservatives preaching about small governments and how liberals only want a "big" government. I am just trying to get a number, a quantitative measurement for how "small" this small government must be. Is that too much to ask?

 

[bucs90]

I think there is no way to measure how big or small a government should be.

Instead, how big or small a government must be to keep a specific population in a state of civility.

For example, Canda would require a much smaller government to maintain civility than...say....Afghanistan or the Congo would. However, Canada has a bigger-than-necessary government, yet, maintains civility anyway. And the shitholes have a much smaller than necessary government, and are in chaos. Hmmmm.

 

[OKTexas]

Not defined? You might want to read the Constitution.

The Constitution does NOT allow for:

- The FBI, DEA, ATF or Border Patrol
- FEMA
- Federal aid to state and city police and fire departments in times of disaster

Are you ready to do away with ALL of the above? The Constitution doesn't allow it.

Actually it does provide for the border patrol, the feds are charged with protecting us from invasion.

 

[newpolitics]

"The "small government" movement in the United States, furthermore, is not just a product of either America's founding or of the Tea Party movement, but is largely a product of Ronald Reagan's presidency from 1980-88, and the conservative movement that prefaced Reagan's presidency. Barry Goldwater's failed 1964 bid for the presidency was a prelude to the ideas of cutting the size of government expressed by Reagan and other conservatives. Reagan served during the same time period as Thatcher, who was listed under the United Kingdom in this article, and the two are linked in discourse about small government.

The Tea Party movement, however, claims that the Founding Fathers advocated small government and that, contrary to what Hamilton wrote, the Constitution prohibits large government. They also claim that in the past the United States had a small government, and that it has turned away from that ideal. The Republican Party is associated with the idea of small government, especially in its conservative wing containing politicians like Ron Paul. One minor party, the Libertarian party, has an ideology of small government. Another advocate for small government is Carla Howell."

Small government - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Darkwind]

Dude, you are a fucking moron. If you can't apply half your brain to this conversation, then just leave.

It is CONSERVATIVES who talk about a quantitatively limited government, in other words, a SMALL government. This implies a specific number which must be defined as small, yet I haven't seen it. Have you? If so, please share. In other words, I am merely responding to the rhetoric made by conservatives, and asking for definitions which need to exist. If you don't a definition for "small government," then stop saying it.

Really?

The classic liberal is a person who believes that government(s) restrict freedoms capriciously and for the enrichment and added power to the ruling class.

The classic liberal was what our founding fathers were.

They were opposed to powerful government, willing to take from the citizen in order to maintain the sovereign of their (the ruling class) power.

Limited government is not about size, (though that plays a part in discussions of economics) but about restrictions. However,the restrictions are not placed upon the citizen, but upon the government itself. The reason that we even discuss enumerated powers is because the framers of our form of government envisioned that government tightly caged, bound by chains and severely restricted in what power it may exercise. The powers they were permitted were enumerated, clearly defined and very limited. All other power was forbidden to the government.

Read the 9th and 10th Amendments, and the writings of the founders.

However, do everyone a favor and drop the meaningless labels that we apply to each other in today's contexts......

The Classical Liberal was anti-government and pro freedom.

And, we are no longer living the times in which the "classical liberal" existed. This is irrelevant anyways. I am simply going by what I observe today: conservatives preaching about small governments and how liberals only want a "big" government. I am just trying to get a number, a quantitative measurement for how "small" this small government must be. Is that too much to ask?

You are attempting to get a handle on a fallacy.

Small government is not a measurement of size, but one of corrupted power.

Today's liberal wishes to legislate their brand of morality, where as a true conservative wishes to remove government from those aspects of society it has no business meddling in.

One other thing. It does not matter that we do NOT live in those times, the meaning and purposes are what matters. The Constitution is no different today than it was 230+ years ago. The words remain the same, with the same meanings.

It is only those who have agendas for power and money that want to drop the past in favor of their corrupted vision of the present.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Good question. I think the term needs to be discussed. While we are at it, let's also define/discuss "fair share."

 

[Darkwind]

"The "small government" movement in the United States, furthermore, is not just a product of either America's founding or of the Tea Party movement, but is largely a product of Ronald Reagan's presidency from 1980-88, and the conservative movement that prefaced Reagan's presidency. Barry Goldwater's failed 1964 bid for the presidency was a prelude to the ideas of cutting the size of government expressed by Reagan and other conservatives. Reagan served during the same time period as Thatcher, who was listed under the United Kingdom in this article, and the two are linked in discourse about small government.

The Tea Party movement, however, claims that the Founding Fathers advocated small government and that, contrary to what Hamilton wrote, the Constitution prohibits large government. They also claim that in the past the United States had a small government, and that it has turned away from that ideal. The Republican Party is associated with the idea of small government, especially in its conservative wing containing politicians like Ron Paul. One minor party, the Libertarian party, has an ideology of small government. Another advocate for small government is Carla Howell."

Small government - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Okay, I see that you are not really interested in a discussion, but the furthering of your own personal agenda.

Small government began at our inception as a country. To deny it is to rewrite history for nefarious purposes.

You are just another corrupt government worshiper. A governmentist.

 

[g5000]

Does anyone actually know what "limited government" means, specifically?

Considering it is an idea so central to conservative political philosophy, I find it curious that i have never found it to be rigorously defined. It is a vague notion that makes every conservative feel all warm inside, but I have never heard it given any detail beyond this term.

How do you go about determining when you reached a "limited government?" In other words, how big is it, actually? Is it defined by how many employees are in the government, and if so, would be this be defined as a percentage of the population? What is the percentage? Is it determined budgetary considerations, perhaps as a percentage of GDP? Considering the fact that our population is growing, does the definition for limited government grow proportionally as population increases? I want specific numbers.

It seems like a meaningless piece of rhetoric, unless someone can help me out here.

Limited government means limiting the intrusion of government into our lives. It is as simple as that.

We are living in a time where the federal government has managed to insinuate itself into every possible transaction or public activity, and most private activities, you may ever need to do.

We are living in a time that whenever someone feels there is a problem, the immediate social response to the problem is, "What is the government going to do about it?"

The government controls everything you do from the time you wake up to the time you go to sleep. No, that's not quite right. The government involves itself in everything you do around the clock.

The government levies extra taxes on you for not buying the right refrigerator, for chrissakes! So for a great many people it felt entirely natural the government should tax you for not buying the right health insurance. This is how far we have fallen from our founding principles.

Even Alexander Hamilton would be shocked out of his stockings to see the level of government intrusion under which we labor today.



.

 

[DiamondDave]

It's not meaningless, it's code for people wanting to divest themselves of social responsibility.

And your the perfect example as to how the commies fail to understand that the social responsibilities were left to the STATES by the Constitution.

I don't care about your twisted constitutional theories, it's what you guys mean when you say that, If all of the social welfare programs were entirely state operations you would despise them too.

Each person has PERSONAL responsibilities... nobody else's personal responsibilities are YOUR responsibilities... The federal government has SPECIFIC LIMITED powers granted to it that it cannot (or is not SUPPOSED to) go beyond... all other powers are then held by the states or the individual citizens...

If you feel you have a CHARITABLE responsibility for others, great.. I applaud that.. and I feel more people should freely help others who are having a tough time, or help causes that speak to them... but nobody should be FORCED to.. you have the freedom to be a charitable philanthropist just as you have the freedom to be a stingy miser... and your attitude in support of forced 'charity' to take care of the personal responsibilities of others shows your contempt for freedom...

 

[newpolitics]

Really?

The classic liberal is a person who believes that government(s) restrict freedoms capriciously and for the enrichment and added power to the ruling class.

The classic liberal was what our founding fathers were.

They were opposed to powerful government, willing to take from the citizen in order to maintain the sovereign of their (the ruling class) power.

Limited government is not about size, (though that plays a part in discussions of economics) but about restrictions. However,the restrictions are not placed upon the citizen, but upon the government itself. The reason that we even discuss enumerated powers is because the framers of our form of government envisioned that government tightly caged, bound by chains and severely restricted in what power it may exercise. The powers they were permitted were enumerated, clearly defined and very limited. All other power was forbidden to the government.

Read the 9th and 10th Amendments, and the writings of the founders.

However, do everyone a favor and drop the meaningless labels that we apply to each other in today's contexts......

The Classical Liberal was anti-government and pro freedom.

And, we are no longer living the times in which the "classical liberal" existed. This is irrelevant anyways. I am simply going by what I observe today: conservatives preaching about small governments and how liberals only want a "big" government. I am just trying to get a number, a quantitative measurement for how "small" this small government must be. Is that too much to ask?

You are attempting to get a handle on a fallacy.

Small government is not a measurement of size, but one of corrupted power.

Today's liberal wishes to legislate their brand of morality, where as a true conservative wishes to remove government from those aspects of society it has no business meddling in.

One other thing. It does not matter that we do NOT live in those times, the meaning and purposes are what matters. The Constitution is no different today than it was 230+ years ago. The words remain the same, with the same meanings.

It is only those who have agendas for power and money that want to drop the past in favor of their corrupted vision of the present.

dude, this is not that complicated.What I am asking is pretty simple: for a definition on an oft repeated term by conservatives. It is used rhetorically, yet seems to lack any real substance. If conservatives want to stake their position on the notion of a "small" government, it needs to be quantified, and I am asking for some measure here. Not a single person has been able to give me this, which confirms my suspicion it doesn't have a defined value, but is simply a concept used rhetorically to bash liberals, to try and make themselves look more "constitutionally aligned."

I understand the traditional concept of limited government, as it pertains to the constitution. That is not what I am asking, because usage of terms changes over time. Since Reagan, conservative ideology has banked on this notion of not just qualitatively limited government, but quantitatively as well. In other words, small. So, this begs the question: How SMALL??? How is small defined? It is a completely relative term with no absolute value, so it needs to be given a definition, yet has not. Until it is defined, it is meaningless.