What is "limited government?"

[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

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.

Small denotes a quantity, by definition. I am just asking for a ballpark measurement of this number, and what it would mean. All of your meanderings into the past are complete non-sequiturs. I am not disagreeing with the notion of small government, just with its use as rhetoric when it has not been defined.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

No, i am saying Republicans didn't. Liberals are still demanding limited government, but idiots now call us conservative because they are are progressives who favor unrestrained government power.

 

[newpolitics]

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.

No, i am saying Republicans didn't. Liberals are still demanding limited government, but idiots now call us conservative because they are are progressives who favor unrestrained government power.

I never see liberals talking about a limited government in the way that conservatives do, and it is not really a part of modern liberalism. It is the pride-piece of conservatives to bash liberals for wanting a big, over-extended government, because they, by contrast, would like a small government. Limited government, I can get down with, but not "small government" because it is a meaningless term without a definition! Therefore it is a dangerous piece of rhetoric, and has been used to sell the conservative ideology to people who are gullible enough to accept it without asking what it means.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

I want to do away with the DEA, ATF, and FEMA, and federal aid to state and local first responders unless there is a significant emergency. Doing so would cut a significant chunk out of defense spending, which should make you happy. Or did you not know that all of those are part of defense spending that you hate? Why do you think Obama is opposed to cutting it?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

If you observed that the moon is hollow and that the rest of us are controlled by aliens are we supposed to accept your version of reality, or can we insist that you are deluded and try to point it out to you?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Good thing we aren't talking about the size of government then, isn't it?

By the way, your just described a tyranny, thanks for making my point from earlier in the thread, the one you personally said was absurd.

 

[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?

If you observed that the moon is hollow and that the rest of us are controlled by aliens are we supposed to accept your version of reality, or can we insist that you are deluded and try to point it out to you?

You are a delightful piece of irony. I'm afraid, the delusion is all yours, with your vacuous assertion that it is liberals who talk of "small" government. It is notoriously conservatives who want this, and for you to deny this really speaks to your dishonest tactics here.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Don't confuse him with details.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"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

There is a difference between a small government and a limited government. Why is it so hard for you to understand that you are talking about two different things? Is it because you never got a basic understanding of English in school?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Idiot, as I have pointed out, more than once, you are confused. Conservatives talk about small government, not limited government. Limited government is what liberals talk about. Unfortunately, the left has abandoned its liberal principles in favor of progressive pipe dreams, and we now have two parties that want the government to be more powerful.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

No, i am saying Republicans didn't. Liberals are still demanding limited government, but idiots now call us conservative because they are are progressives who favor unrestrained government power.

I never see liberals talking about a limited government in the way that conservatives do, and it is not really a part of modern liberalism. It is the pride-piece of conservatives to bash liberals for wanting a big, over-extended government, because they, by contrast, would like a small government. Limited government, I can get down with, but not "small government" because it is a meaningless term without a definition! Therefore it is a dangerous piece of rhetoric, and has been used to sell the conservative ideology to people who are gullible enough to accept it without asking what it means.

Once more for the completely clueless idiots like NewPolitics.

Democrats are not liberals, they are progressives. Liberals care about limiting the power of government, and hate the PATRIOT Act, the TSA, and the entire war on terror. Democrats voted for and support the intrusion on privacy in favor of security.

Republicans are not conservatives, they are regressive. Conservatives want government to spend within its means, Republicans have no problem with borrowing money and putting off dealing with the consequences until sometime after they are dead.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

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.

This not a bad question, but the basic answer is quite simple. The answer is not too dissimilar to that of "What is Democracy?"

Democracy has no universally accepted definition.

Democracy is more of a guiding principle, or aspect of a government that seeks equality under the law and representation of the people. This typically takes the form of a representative democracy, and direct democracies practically don't exist or are terribly impractical. Overall, however, Democracy is more conceptual than an actual form of government, but that does not diminish it's importance.

Like Democracy, limited government is not something that is reached. It is a principle of less vs. more intrusive control. Whether or not you agree with that principle, or whether or not you believe the GOP defines or embraces that principle well, no answer will provide the concrete one that you seem to be asking for in the OP. The principle is every bit as abstract as "Democracy."

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

If you observed that the moon is hollow and that the rest of us are controlled by aliens are we supposed to accept your version of reality, or can we insist that you are deluded and try to point it out to you?

You are a delightful piece of irony. I'm afraid, the delusion is all yours, with your vacuous assertion that it is liberals who talk of "small" government. It is notoriously conservatives who want this, and for you to deny this really speaks to your dishonest tactics here.

I have tried to explain to you multiple times that you are misapplying labels here, which is why you are so confused.

Liberals want freedom.
Progressives want government to keep them safe.
Regressive want government to mandate morality.
Conservatives want government to do its job efficiently.

Three of those are impossible, make your own choice.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

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.

You honestly don't understand what "limited" means?

Damn, how did you make it out of the third grade? Or did you?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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

It means whatever the conservatives say it means.

For instance, it apparently means government that dictates to business and unions that they may not have an exclusive agreement with each other.

 

[newpolitics]

No, i am saying Republicans didn't. Liberals are still demanding limited government, but idiots now call us conservative because they are are progressives who favor unrestrained government power.

I never see liberals talking about a limited government in the way that conservatives do, and it is not really a part of modern liberalism. It is the pride-piece of conservatives to bash liberals for wanting a big, over-extended government, because they, by contrast, would like a small government. Limited government, I can get down with, but not "small government" because it is a meaningless term without a definition! Therefore it is a dangerous piece of rhetoric, and has been used to sell the conservative ideology to people who are gullible enough to accept it without asking what it means.

Once more for the completely clueless idiots like NewPolitics.

Democrats are not liberals, they are progressives. Liberals care about limiting the power of government, and hate the PATRIOT Act, the TSA, and the entire war on terror. Democrats voted for and support the intrusion on privacy in favor of security.

Republicans are not conservatives, they are regressive. Conservatives want government to spend within its means, Republicans have no problem with borrowing money and putting off dealing with the consequences until sometime after they are dead.

I already admitted that I conflated "limited" and "small" government, so stop name-calling like a little child.

The reason I made this thread still stands as valid. I observe the rhetoric coming from conservatives, and am asking for a definition on a central piece of their ideology, or so it seems. We always hear that we need to "shrink" the government, so, to what size??? I am no longer talking about "limited" government, but the size of government. I want to know how big should the government be, according to conservatives.

 

[newpolitics]

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.

You honestly don't understand what "limited" means?

Damn, how did you make it out of the third grade? Or did you?

Wow. Good one, lonestar. You really got me. Did you have an actual point, or are you still butthurt about getting spanked in the creationist thread?

 

[newpolitics]

If you observed that the moon is hollow and that the rest of us are controlled by aliens are we supposed to accept your version of reality, or can we insist that you are deluded and try to point it out to you?

You are a delightful piece of irony. I'm afraid, the delusion is all yours, with your vacuous assertion that it is liberals who talk of "small" government. It is notoriously conservatives who want this, and for you to deny this really speaks to your dishonest tactics here.

I have tried to explain to you multiple times that you are misapplying labels here, which is why you are so confused.

Liberals want freedom.
Progressives want government to keep them safe.
Regressive want government to mandate morality.
Conservatives want government to do its job efficiently.

Three of those are impossible, make your own choice.

I don't care about labels. I care about rhetoric, and the actual claims being made. Specifically, I care about rhetoric which claims there is an "optimal" size of government. For the tenth time, I am just trying to get a definition on this optimal size, and how one would go about determining this.

I am pointing this out because I believe the whole claim is vacuous, and simply exists to be rhetorical. The problem is that people stake their beliefs on this concept, and I find it dishonestly pedaled to the masses.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

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.

You honestly don't understand what "limited" means?

Damn, how did you make it out of the third grade? Or did you?

Did you have an actual point, or are you just here to be an asshole?

I'm just being an asshole.

 

[newpolitics]

You honestly don't understand what "limited" means?

Damn, how did you make it out of the third grade? Or did you?

Did you have an actual point, or are you just here to be an asshole?

I'm just being an asshole.

No shit? Wow. I had no idea.