The OP post was about that and it's what I've argued through the thread. Instead of just asking me to repeat it all, build on that.
Why would it be preferable to the size and scope of government wanted by the American people?
Why should a country of over 300 million people and the largest GDP be satisfied with "small government"?
Because our country was built on respect for the individual, not the tyranny of the majority.
You're full of it anyway, you want authoritarian leftism, not democracy. Every time the authoritarian leftists courts overturn Democracy you cheer. Abortion, gay government marriage, discrimination in favor of minorities, taking land by force for the interest of the government and not for public use, you cheer it all. "Majority" for you is just a justification for only those things you agree with the majority on.
You're an extremist who only cares about the selfish interests of roughly half the country. I'm a moderate who cares about the liberty of the entire country.
When you get your way, my choice is eliminated. When I get my way, your choice is intact. You can still give to charity, you can still help people. So can I.
That you are the extremist and I am the moderate is just blatantly clear.
Why Thomas Jefferson Favored Profit Sharing
By David Cay Johnston
The founders, despite decades of rancorous disagreements about almost every other aspect of their grand experiment, agreed that America would survive and thrive only if there was widespread ownership of land and businesses.
George Washington, nine months before his inauguration as the first president, predicted that America "will be the most favorable country of any kind in the world for persons of industry and frugality, possessed of moderate capital, to inhabit." And, he continued, "it will not be less advantageous to the happiness of the lowest class of people, because of the equal distribution of property."
The second president, John Adams, feared "monopolies of land" would destroy the nation and that a business aristocracy born of inequality would manipulate voters, creating "a system of subordination to all... The capricious will of one or a very few" dominating the rest. Unless constrained, Adams wrote, "the rich and the proud" would wield economic and political power that "will destroy all the equality and liberty, with the consent and acclamations of the people themselves."
James Madison, the Constitution's main author, described inequality as an evil, saying government should prevent "an immoderate, and especially unmerited, accumulation of riches." He favored "the silent operation of laws which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigents towards a state of comfort."
Alexander Hamilton, who championed manufacturing and banking as the first Treasury secretary, also argued for widespread ownership of assets, warning in 1782 that, "whenever a discretionary power is lodged in any set of men over the property of their neighbors, they will abuse it."
Late in life, Adams, pessimistic about whether the republic would endure, wrote that the goal of the democratic government was not to help the wealthy and powerful but to achieve "the greatest happiness for the greatest number."
http://www.newsweek.com/2014/02/07/why-thomas-jefferson-favored-profit-sharing-245454.html
Annual Message of 1815 (Seven Points)
Funds for national defense
Frigates for the Navy
A standing army and federal control of the militia
Federal aid for building roads and canals
A protective tariff to encourage manufacturers
Re-establishing the National Bank
Federal assumption of some state debt
James Madison: Seventh Annual Message
In the early 19th century, "it is quite clear that the laissez-faire label is an inappropriate one" to apply to the relationship between the U.S. government and industry
Daniel Webster, the Boston Associates, and the U.S. Government's Role in the Industrializing Process, 1815183
(Re-)Introducing: The American School of Economics
When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world. Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown.
Closely related to mercantilism, it can be seen as contrary to classical economics. It consisted of these three core policies:
protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 18611932) and through subsidies (especially 193270)
government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)
a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation
Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders.
American School of Economics
American School (economics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
