What is "limited government?"

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Yet you still think that Democrat=Liberal and Republican=Conservative, which just proves how stupid you are.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Let me get this straight, you care more about rhetoric, exaggeration, and hyperbole, than you do reality, and you want me to defend your interpretation of that rhetoric. Does that sum up your position?

 

[RandallFlagg]

The concept of limited government disappeared about 150 years ago. The definition of limited government in the US is the Constitution. Read it, then compare what is says with the leviathan we have now. There are specific enumerated powers in the Constitution, that the federal government is supposed restrain it self to. So the short answer, limited government appears to have been a fantasy our founders believed in, but have been dispelled by subsequent generations.

While I agree with your post for the most part, I disagree on this point (respectfully). As I read the founding documents, the founding Fathers had a government in mind that would basically shift all powers (with the exception of Tariffs and the national defense) to the individual states. The House was elected to serve the individual and the Senate was appointed to serve as spokesmen for the states. The Congress was expressly forbidden from actually living in Washington. The came or their term and were then mandated to return to their individual state to represent their constituency.

Unfortunately, over the course of our history, we see how that turned out. Congressmen and Senators now go to Washington and when they FINALLY leave, are taken care of for life and most are multi-millionaires. There are more millionaires in DC than most anywhere else on the continent. Property values are higher than anywhere else in the country while, in the surrounding areas, it is a virtual wasteland of murder and mayhem. Lobbyists, from both sides of the aisle, spend untold millions of dollars each year to buy votes.

The current administration, who claimed the most "transparent administration in US history" regularly meets with lobbyists across the street from the White House so as to not enter them into the White House record. Nothing more than any previous administration has done, I'm sure.

 

[newpolitics]

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.

Let me get this straight, you care more about rhetoric, exaggeration, and hyperbole, than you do reality, and you want me to defend your interpretation of that rhetoric. Does that sum up your position?

It's hard for me to answer such a malformed question. Do you have any idea what rhetoric is? It is not synonymous with exaggeration and hyperbole. Also, rhetoric is used in reality, by real people, and it has real effects on populations, especially in a "free country" with a media such as ours. Therefore, discussions of rhetoric are extremely pertinent.

"Rhetoric is the art of discourse, an art that aims to improve the facility of speakers or writers who attempt to inform, persuade, or motivate particular audiences in specific situations.[1] As a subject of formal study and a productive civic practice, rhetoric has played a central role in the Western tradition.[2] Its best known definition comes from Aristotle, who considers it a counterpart of both logic and politics, and calls it "the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion."
(wiki)

I don't see anything in there that indicates hyperbole and exaggeration. While rhetoric may sometimes include or use these things, it is not synonymous with them.

 

[newpolitics]

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.

Yet you still think that Democrat=Liberal and Republican=Conservative, which just proves how stupid you are.

These distinctions are irrelevant to this thread, so, I don't really care. You obviously are just dying to "bust me up" for egotistical purpose, but you can't even address a very simple question. I don't understand why you have to make this so complicated. For the purposes of this discussion whether they do or don't equal those things, has nothing to do with the claims being made by people, whom I would call "republicans." But, if they are conservatives, it really doesn't matter. I am just looking for anyone that can define how small a "small" government would be. That is all. Do you understand???

 

[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.

Using your own biased and ridiculous definitions? NO, thanks.

 

[regent]

We had a very limited government but the framers changed that very limited government into a large government with numerous powers.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Let me get this straight, you care more about rhetoric, exaggeration, and hyperbole, than you do reality, and you want me to defend your interpretation of that rhetoric. Does that sum up your position?

It's hard for me to answer such a malformed question. Do you have any idea what rhetoric is? It is not synonymous with exaggeration and hyperbole. Also, rhetoric is used in reality, by real people, and it has real effects on populations, especially in a "free country" with a media such as ours. Therefore, discussions of rhetoric are extremely pertinent.

"Rhetoric is the art of discourse, an art that aims to improve the facility of speakers or writers who attempt to inform, persuade, or motivate particular audiences in specific situations.[1] As a subject of formal study and a productive civic practice, rhetoric has played a central role in the Western tradition.[2] Its best known definition comes from Aristotle, who considers it a counterpart of both logic and politics, and calls it "the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion."
(wiki)

I don't see anything in there that indicates hyperbole and exaggeration. While rhetoric may sometimes include or use these things, it is not synonymous with them.

Maybe you should keep reading, and then do a little research, instead of just reading one sentence and declaring yourself smarter than anyone else.

Rhetoric is the art of discourse, an art that aims to improve the facility of speakers or writers who attempt to inform, persuade, or motivate particular audiences in specific situations. As a subject of formal study and a productive civic practice, rhetoric has played a central role in the Western tradition. Its best known definition comes from Aristotle, who considers it a counterpart of both logic and politics, and calls it "the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion." Rhetorics typically provide heuristics for understanding, discovering, and developing arguments for particular situations, such as Aristotle's three persuasive audience appeals, logos, pathos, and ethos. The five canons of rhetoric, which trace the traditional tasks in designing a persuasive speech, were first codified in classical Rome, invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery. Along with grammar and logic (or dialectic – see Martianus Capella), rhetoric is one of the three ancient arts of discourse.

From ancient Greece to the late 19th century, it was a central part of Western education, filling the need to train public speakers and writers to move audiences to action with arguments. The word is derived from the Greek ??t?????? (rhetorikós), "oratorical", from ??t?? (rh?tor), "public speaker", related to ??µa (rhêma), "that which is said or spoken, word, saying", and ultimately derived from the verb ???? (loqui), "to speak, say".
​

Rhetoric is nothing more than how you say something. It is all about bypassing the brain and appealing to the emotions, You do this through exaggeration and hyperbole, not dry facts. Your attempt to argue that rhetoric is more about what people say than how they say it demonstrates your complete misunderstanding of the word. If you don't believe me look up pathos and ethos in Wiki.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Yet you still think that Democrat=Liberal and Republican=Conservative, which just proves how stupid you are.

These distinctions are irrelevant to this thread, so, I don't really care. You obviously are just dying to "bust me up" for egotistical purpose, but you can't even address a very simple question. I don't understand why you have to make this so complicated. For the purposes of this discussion whether they do or don't equal those things, has nothing to do with the claims being made by people, whom I would call "republicans." But, if they are conservatives, it really doesn't matter. I am just looking for anyone that can define how small a "small" government would be. That is all. Do you understand???

They are not irrelevant. You keep talking about how conservatives talk about small government when the truth is you are listening to Republicans, not conservatives.

 

[newpolitics]

Let me get this straight, you care more about rhetoric, exaggeration, and hyperbole, than you do reality, and you want me to defend your interpretation of that rhetoric. Does that sum up your position?

It's hard for me to answer such a malformed question. Do you have any idea what rhetoric is? It is not synonymous with exaggeration and hyperbole. Also, rhetoric is used in reality, by real people, and it has real effects on populations, especially in a "free country" with a media such as ours. Therefore, discussions of rhetoric are extremely pertinent.

"Rhetoric is the art of discourse, an art that aims to improve the facility of speakers or writers who attempt to inform, persuade, or motivate particular audiences in specific situations.[1] As a subject of formal study and a productive civic practice, rhetoric has played a central role in the Western tradition.[2] Its best known definition comes from Aristotle, who considers it a counterpart of both logic and politics, and calls it "the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion."
(wiki)

I don't see anything in there that indicates hyperbole and exaggeration. While rhetoric may sometimes include or use these things, it is not synonymous with them.

Maybe you should keep reading, and then do a little research, instead of just reading one sentence and declaring yourself smarter than anyone else.

Rhetoric is the art of discourse, an art that aims to improve the facility of speakers or writers who attempt to inform, persuade, or motivate particular audiences in specific situations. As a subject of formal study and a productive civic practice, rhetoric has played a central role in the Western tradition. Its best known definition comes from Aristotle, who considers it a counterpart of both logic and politics, and calls it "the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion." Rhetorics typically provide heuristics for understanding, discovering, and developing arguments for particular situations, such as Aristotle's three persuasive audience appeals, logos, pathos, and ethos. The five canons of rhetoric, which trace the traditional tasks in designing a persuasive speech, were first codified in classical Rome, invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery. Along with grammar and logic (or dialectic – see Martianus Capella), rhetoric is one of the three ancient arts of discourse.

From ancient Greece to the late 19th century, it was a central part of Western education, filling the need to train public speakers and writers to move audiences to action with arguments. The word is derived from the Greek ??t?????? (rhetorikós), "oratorical", from ??t?? (rh?tor), "public speaker", related to ??µa (rhêma), "that which is said or spoken, word, saying", and ultimately derived from the verb ???? (loqui), "to speak, say".
​

Rhetoric is nothing more than how you say something. It is all about bypassing the brain and appealing to the emotions, You do this through exaggeration and hyperbole, not dry facts. Your attempt to argue that rhetoric is more about what people say than how they say it demonstrates your complete misunderstanding of the word. If you don't believe me look up pathos and ethos in Wiki.

Are we really going to have an argument about fucking "rhetoric" now? You are a little child. Must I put you in your place? I will repeat, which the above only verifies: Rhetoric is not synonymous with hyperbole and exaggeration. One may use hyperbole and exaggeration as part of a rhetorical style, but in no way is part of the definition of rhetoric. therefore, they are categorically distinct. You are committing a categorical error in lumping these things together. Rhetoric is simply the description of the art to persuade or convince, and in no way necessitates the use of hyperbole or exaggeration.

To reiterate: Hyperbole and Exaggeration are nowhere contained in the definition of rhetoric. Merely, they are tools for rhetoricians. As such, they are categorically distinct, and can not be synonymous, as far as usage goes. So, try asking your question again, and maybe I can answer it, and we can get past this discussion.

It really seems like your end goal is to try to frustrate threads as much as possible.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It's hard for me to answer such a malformed question. Do you have any idea what rhetoric is? It is not synonymous with exaggeration and hyperbole. Also, rhetoric is used in reality, by real people, and it has real effects on populations, especially in a "free country" with a media such as ours. Therefore, discussions of rhetoric are extremely pertinent.

"Rhetoric is the art of discourse, an art that aims to improve the facility of speakers or writers who attempt to inform, persuade, or motivate particular audiences in specific situations.[1] As a subject of formal study and a productive civic practice, rhetoric has played a central role in the Western tradition.[2] Its best known definition comes from Aristotle, who considers it a counterpart of both logic and politics, and calls it "the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion."
(wiki)

I don't see anything in there that indicates hyperbole and exaggeration. While rhetoric may sometimes include or use these things, it is not synonymous with them.

Maybe you should keep reading, and then do a little research, instead of just reading one sentence and declaring yourself smarter than anyone else.

Rhetoric is the art of discourse, an art that aims to improve the facility of speakers or writers who attempt to inform, persuade, or motivate particular audiences in specific situations. As a subject of formal study and a productive civic practice, rhetoric has played a central role in the Western tradition. Its best known definition comes from Aristotle, who considers it a counterpart of both logic and politics, and calls it "the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion." Rhetorics typically provide heuristics for understanding, discovering, and developing arguments for particular situations, such as Aristotle's three persuasive audience appeals, logos, pathos, and ethos. The five canons of rhetoric, which trace the traditional tasks in designing a persuasive speech, were first codified in classical Rome, invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery. Along with grammar and logic (or dialectic – see Martianus Capella), rhetoric is one of the three ancient arts of discourse.

From ancient Greece to the late 19th century, it was a central part of Western education, filling the need to train public speakers and writers to move audiences to action with arguments. The word is derived from the Greek ??t?????? (rhetorikós), "oratorical", from ??t?? (rh?tor), "public speaker", related to ??µa (rhêma), "that which is said or spoken, word, saying", and ultimately derived from the verb ???? (loqui), "to speak, say".
​

Rhetoric is nothing more than how you say something. It is all about bypassing the brain and appealing to the emotions, You do this through exaggeration and hyperbole, not dry facts. Your attempt to argue that rhetoric is more about what people say than how they say it demonstrates your complete misunderstanding of the word. If you don't believe me look up pathos and ethos in Wiki.

Are we really going to have an argument about fucking "rhetoric" now? You are a little child. Must I put you in your place? I will repeat, which the above only verifies: Rhetoric is not synonymous with hyperbole and exaggeration. One may use hyperbole and exaggeration as part of a rhetorical style, but in no way is part of the definition of rhetoric. therefore, they are categorically distinct. You are committing a categorical error in lumping these things together. Rhetoric is simply the description of the art to persuade or convince, and in no way necessitates the use of hyperbole or exaggeration.

To reiterate: Hyperbole and Exaggeration are nowhere contained in the definition of rhetoric. Merely, they are tools for rhetoricians. As such, they are categorically distinct, and can not be synonymous, as far as usage goes. So, try asking your question again, and maybe I can answer it, and we can get past this discussion.

It really seems like your end goal is to try to frustrate threads as much as possible.

Yeah, he’s among our more tedious rightist ideologues.

 

[bripat9643]

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

"Social responsibility" is a left-wing euphemism meaning "ticks on the ass of society."

Yeah, I do want to "divest" myself of them, just as a horse would like to "divest" himself of the parasites sucking the blood from his crotch.

 

[bripat9643]

"limited government" doesn't meaning any of that. You posted a load of left-wing psycho-babble that bares no resemblance to anything conservatives or libertarians mean by the term. If you want an understanding of the meaning of the term, then ask the people who coined it, not some left-wing propagandists who are opposed to it on principle.

For conservatives it is indeed a meaningless piece of rhetoric, and a considerable source for rightist hypocrisy

Limited government concerns the utmost protection of civil liberties afforded citizens, where the state may not preempt or limit individual liberty absent a reasonable, compelling governmental interest.

Conflict arises when the state attempts to restrict or deny us our civil liberties for subjective, capricious reasons – such as violating privacy rights with regard to abortion, violating due process rights with regard to immigration, or violating equal protection rights with regard to same-sex couples’ access to marriage; hence the hypocrisy of conservatives.

Limited government means that your fellow Americans might say or do things you find offensive or inappropriate, but you may not enlist the authority of the state to prohibit the protected speech or actions of those fellow Americans.

Limited government does not empower property owners to abuse their employees, sell unsafe goods or services, or cause harm to the environment, as most on the right will have you believe.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Yes we would. The reason goose-steppers like you hate the concept of states rights is because you know it allows people to escape all your totalitarian welfare-state crap.

 

[newpolitics]

Can we please stop the flame war? I want to have a real discussion. If you have nothing to offer but ideological hate, then please refrain from commenting. If you think I am guilty of this, then call me on it. Otherwise, cut the shit.

 

[bripat9643]

To a conservative, limited govt is simply getting rid of whatever he personally doesn't like or thinks HE personally doesn't need. Screw everyone else.

That's almost true. Why should anyone pay for what they don't want and don't need?

You must made it perfectly clear that liberals want to ramn their schemes down everyone's throat whether they want it or need it.

 

[bripat9643]

We had a very limited government but the framers changed that very limited government into a large government with numerous powers.

No they didn't. Abraham Lincoln did that.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Sure they can, as long it's voluntary. However, anyone who understands labor law knows that such arrangements are not voluntary on the part of the employer. The government steps in and rams them down the employer's throat. He agrees to them at gunpoint.

 

[regent]

We had a very limited government but the framers changed that very limited government into a large government with numerous powers.

No they didn't. Abraham Lincoln did that.

Aticles of Confederation to the Constitution.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's hard for me to answer such a malformed question. Do you have any idea what rhetoric is? It is not synonymous with exaggeration and hyperbole. Also, rhetoric is used in reality, by real people, and it has real effects on populations, especially in a "free country" with a media such as ours. Therefore, discussions of rhetoric are extremely pertinent.

"Rhetoric is the art of discourse, an art that aims to improve the facility of speakers or writers who attempt to inform, persuade, or motivate particular audiences in specific situations.[1] As a subject of formal study and a productive civic practice, rhetoric has played a central role in the Western tradition.[2] Its best known definition comes from Aristotle, who considers it a counterpart of both logic and politics, and calls it "the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion."
(wiki)

I don't see anything in there that indicates hyperbole and exaggeration. While rhetoric may sometimes include or use these things, it is not synonymous with them.

Maybe you should keep reading, and then do a little research, instead of just reading one sentence and declaring yourself smarter than anyone else.

Rhetoric is the art of discourse, an art that aims to improve the facility of speakers or writers who attempt to inform, persuade, or motivate particular audiences in specific situations. As a subject of formal study and a productive civic practice, rhetoric has played a central role in the Western tradition. Its best known definition comes from Aristotle, who considers it a counterpart of both logic and politics, and calls it "the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion." Rhetorics typically provide heuristics for understanding, discovering, and developing arguments for particular situations, such as Aristotle's three persuasive audience appeals, logos, pathos, and ethos. The five canons of rhetoric, which trace the traditional tasks in designing a persuasive speech, were first codified in classical Rome, invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery. Along with grammar and logic (or dialectic – see Martianus Capella), rhetoric is one of the three ancient arts of discourse.

From ancient Greece to the late 19th century, it was a central part of Western education, filling the need to train public speakers and writers to move audiences to action with arguments. The word is derived from the Greek ??t?????? (rhetorikós), "oratorical", from ??t?? (rh?tor), "public speaker", related to ??µa (rhêma), "that which is said or spoken, word, saying", and ultimately derived from the verb ???? (loqui), "to speak, say".
​

Rhetoric is nothing more than how you say something. It is all about bypassing the brain and appealing to the emotions, You do this through exaggeration and hyperbole, not dry facts. Your attempt to argue that rhetoric is more about what people say than how they say it demonstrates your complete misunderstanding of the word. If you don't believe me look up pathos and ethos in Wiki.

Are we really going to have an argument about fucking "rhetoric" now? You are a little child. Must I put you in your place? I will repeat, which the above only verifies: Rhetoric is not synonymous with hyperbole and exaggeration. One may use hyperbole and exaggeration as part of a rhetorical style, but in no way is part of the definition of rhetoric. therefore, they are categorically distinct. You are committing a categorical error in lumping these things together. Rhetoric is simply the description of the art to persuade or convince, and in no way necessitates the use of hyperbole or exaggeration.

To reiterate: Hyperbole and Exaggeration are nowhere contained in the definition of rhetoric. Merely, they are tools for rhetoricians. As such, they are categorically distinct, and can not be synonymous, as far as usage goes. So, try asking your question again, and maybe I can answer it, and we can get past this discussion.

It really seems like your end goal is to try to frustrate threads as much as possible.

Why are you upset? You are the one that insisted you wanted to talk about rhetoric, is it my fault that you didn't know what it actually is? Just to prove how stupid you are to insist that the definition of rhetoric does not say anything about exaggeration.

rhetoric
rhet·o·ric [ret-er-ik]
noun
1. (in writing or speech) the undue use of exaggeration or display; bombast.

Rhetoric | Define Rhetoric at Dictionary.com

Want to keep telling me I am completely wrong?