Why do you want more government in your life?

[QUENTIN]

When you call for and support the expansion of government into more and more aspects of life, you are indeed CALLING FOR more government IN your life

So perhaps YOU should answer the OP's question.

Funny... thought it was pretty evident that I want smaller government and hence less government in my life

So you want us out of Iraq and Afghanistan, back to defending the borders and not meddling in other countries' affairs so the government can no longer assert the right to imprison or assassinate you without trial, spy on you without warrant, or take fully half your tax dollars to occupy other countries?

There is no bigger aspect of government than the intractable and enormous military-industrial complex, no greater benefactor of government largesse and no other subject which leads to the assertion and exercise of continually expanding powers.

Or do you mean you're fine with big government, you just don't like social programs?

 

[jillian]

I just want to know why? Why don't you want more freedom to choose what you want to do?

Do you really think government will do everything better than you would?

I just don't get it.

no one who wants them taking away my right to freedom of choice or who wants government to enforce his religious belief vis a vis gays has any business talking about small government.

 

[The Rabbi]

So where did these rights come from and who decided that?

It was a clear delineation based on the Declaration of Independence phrase "We hold these truths to be self evident".
The constitution was constructed, debated, amended then finally ratified by the individual states (state in this instance meaning independent countries associated under what was a loose confederation).
The Constitution wasn't ratified until June 21, 1788 when, finally, all the states accepted the definition and separation of power between what became the federal government and each state.

So the source of these rights is "self evident"?? They aren't self evident to me. So they aren't self evident at all.
You'll need a better answer than to quote the Declaration.

 

[Ringel05]

So where did these rights come from and who decided that?

It was a clear delineation based on the Declaration of Independence phrase "We hold these truths to be self evident".
The constitution was constructed, debated, amended then finally ratified by the individual states (state in this instance meaning independent countries associated under what was a loose confederation).
The Constitution wasn't ratified until June 21, 1788 when, finally, all the states accepted the definition and separation of power between what became the federal government and each state.

So the source of these rights is "self evident"?? They aren't self evident to me. So they aren't self evident at all.
You'll need a better answer than to quote the Declaration.

Quoting the declaration is quoting the founding fathers. I am simply reiterating their strongly held beliefs on this matter. Not to appear nasty but honestly I don't care if you don't see it as self evident or not, that's not my fault or my problem, I didn't teach the class you were in. I base my knowledge of this subject on the founders writings to include the Declaration and the Constitution much of which was covered in college civics classes.

 

[Avatar4321]

I just want to know why? Why don't you want more freedom to choose what you want to do?

Do you really think government will do everything better than you would?

I just don't get it.

What are you?

Some kind of anarchist?

Do you think YOU can defend this nation all by yourself?

How does giving government complete power over our lives defend us?

Is someone trying to destroy us?

 

[Ringel05]

As for "God given" I am simply quoting the founding fathers. The constitution does not give us the citizens any rights. It simply tells the government these rights are already in place and that the government can in no way infringe upon these rights. Did you never take civics?
People selected to perform a specific function does not necessitate they are a representative government it simply means they have been selected to perform a specific task or duty. In this instance it was to construct a document to form a representative federal government.

lol, you re the one denying that a president does also represent a government and you re asking me if I never took civics?

Edit: I adjusted my post above after posting it (which is not quoted in your current post)

and the signature of the FIRST US PRESIDENT (George Washington). And if I m not wrong: a president represents something that is called a government (head of government + head of state).

On April 30, 1789, George Washington, standing on the balcony of Federal Hall on Wall Street in New York, took his oath of office as the first President of the United States.
Like I said the constitution wasn't ratified until 1788.

 

[Avatar4321]

True, but within parties you do have something you can call "independant" elections. Only problem is that these 2 massive parties that the US has are incredibly influenced by outside lobbies from BIG private corporations.

Don't forget the large consortiums representing masses of individuals. The NEA, NRA, union lobbies, etc.

Also true, I forgot those. But I don't think they compare with the scale of the funds that the big corp can put forward.

Because there is nothing more evil that a successful corporation. We should all live in fear of private citizens doing well in business.

We have absolutely nothing to fear about the government taking over every aspect of our lives.

 

[G.T.]

Don't forget the large consortiums representing masses of individuals. The NEA, NRA, union lobbies, etc.

Also true, I forgot those. But I don't think they compare with the scale of the funds that the big corp can put forward.

Because there is nothing more evil that a successful corporation. We should all live in fear of private citizens doing well in business.

We have absolutely nothing to fear about the government taking over every aspect of our lives.

Corporations own the Government.

 

[QUENTIN]

Also true, I forgot those. But I don't think they compare with the scale of the funds that the big corp can put forward.

Because there is nothing more evil that a successful corporation. We should all live in fear of private citizens doing well in business.

We have absolutely nothing to fear about the government taking over every aspect of our lives.

Corporations own the Government.

Fact.

With a few exceptions of its own power grubbing, the primary function of modern government is to enforce the will and meet the demands of the corporations that have bought and own it.

 

[DiamondDave]

So perhaps YOU should answer the OP's question.

Funny... thought it was pretty evident that I want smaller government and hence less government in my life

So you want us out of Iraq and Afghanistan, back to defending the borders and not meddling in other countries' affairs so the government can no longer assert the right to imprison or assassinate you without trial, spy on you without warrant, or take fully half your tax dollars to occupy other countries?

There is no bigger aspect of government than the intractable and enormous military-industrial complex, no greater benefactor of government largesse and no other subject which leads to the assertion and exercise of continually expanding powers.

Or do you mean you're fine with big government, you just don't like social programs?

And the winger tries to put words into my mouth.... and brings out a few of the oft-used winger myths such as 'government spying on you', 'looking to kill you as a terrorist', etc

I did not say I wanted us 'out of Iraq and Afghanistan'... unlike what most of government spends money on, war and national defense are legit and a charge of the federal government.... I would rather see an all out offensive against terrorism than mamby pambying around the way that has been done... I would like to see us ramping down as we have Iraq and Afghanistan more capable of taking care of their own security issues... I want to see government stopping payment on all contractors who do not provide what they have agreed to, or who are not timely in their delivery.... national defense is that main charge of our federal government, and I want to see us remain the top military power and spend enough on our military to ensure that... without earmarks, pet programs, etc

 

[DiamondDave]

Because there is nothing more evil that a successful corporation. We should all live in fear of private citizens doing well in business.

We have absolutely nothing to fear about the government taking over every aspect of our lives.

Corporations own the Government.

Fact.

With a few exceptions of its own power grubbing, the primary function of modern government is to enforce the will and meet the demands of the corporations that have bought and own it.

So then if this is true, the left complains about this and wants to empower government to actually expand into even more areas such as healthcare, cap and trade, etc??

 

[Dante]

So where did these rights come from and who decided that?

It was a clear delineation based on the Declaration of Independence phrase "We hold these truths to be self evident".
The constitution was constructed, debated, amended then finally ratified by the individual states (state in this instance meaning independent countries associated under what was a loose confederation).
The Constitution wasn't ratified until June 21, 1788 when, finally, all the states accepted the definition and separation of power between what became the federal government and each state.

What is the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence?

 

[Ringel05]

So where did these rights come from and who decided that?

It was a clear delineation based on the Declaration of Independence phrase "We hold these truths to be self evident".
The constitution was constructed, debated, amended then finally ratified by the individual states (state in this instance meaning independent countries associated under what was a loose confederation).
The Constitution wasn't ratified until June 21, 1788 when, finally, all the states accepted the definition and separation of power between what became the federal government and each state.

What is the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence?

If you don't know maybe you should read them.

 

[G.T.]

Corporations own the Government.

Fact.

With a few exceptions of its own power grubbing, the primary function of modern government is to enforce the will and meet the demands of the corporations that have bought and own it.

So then if this is true, the left complains about this and wants to empower government to actually expand into even more areas such as healthcare, cap and trade, etc??

There's corpo's that benefit from healthcare. There's corpo's that benefit from cap and trade.

I somehow like to think our "Leaders" aren't really just some braindead desk jockeys, though. Like I have this diabolical theory that the Presidency and what-not is all just for show and the same people behind the curtain are really always in power. A smoke and mirrors kinda deal.

 

[Samson]

It will help you when you are in serious trouble: if a natural disaster happens, you or your family are being assaulted by another person for no good reason, it will provide your society with the means to increase your freedom of movement (roads, bridges, airports, canals, railroads, ...), ....

I'm certain no one objects to supporting a central authority that will help citizens in "SERIOUS TROUBLE."

The question is defining "serious trouble."

IMHO the Federal Government actually CREATES "SERIOUS TROUBLE" when it devalues my savings and property after they have flooded the economy with dollars which are rapidly declining in value.

The Federal Government Creates SERIOUS TROUBLE when they garner my wages well beyond what it costs to keep me out of SERIOUS TROUBLE.

The Federal Government Creates SERIOUS TROUBLE when they enact rules and regulations that send my job overseas.

The Federal Government Creates SERIOUS TROUBLE when they limit the exploitation of natural resources, creating shortages, and increasing the costs of business

 

[QUENTIN]

Funny... thought it was pretty evident that I want smaller government and hence less government in my life

So you want us out of Iraq and Afghanistan, back to defending the borders and not meddling in other countries' affairs so the government can no longer assert the right to imprison or assassinate you without trial, spy on you without warrant, or take fully half your tax dollars to occupy other countries?

There is no bigger aspect of government than the intractable and enormous military-industrial complex, no greater benefactor of government largesse and no other subject which leads to the assertion and exercise of continually expanding powers.

Or do you mean you're fine with big government, you just don't like social programs?

And the winger tries to put words into my mouth.... and brings out a few of the oft-used winger myths such as 'government spying on you', 'looking to kill you as a terrorist', etc

I did not say I wanted us 'out of Iraq and Afghanistan'... unlike what most of government spends money on, war and national defense are legit and a charge of the federal government.... I would rather see an all out offensive against terrorism than mamby pambying around the way that has been done... I would like to see us ramping down as we have Iraq and Afghanistan more capable of taking care of their own security issues... I want to see government stopping payment on all contractors who do not provide what they have agreed to, or who are not timely in their delivery.... national defense is that main charge of our federal government, and I want to see us remain the top military power and spend enough on our military to ensure that... without earmarks, pet programs, etc

The government has asserted and exercised the right to listen to Americans' phone calls, read their e-mails, go through their records, etc. without a warrant. The government has asserted and exercised the right to imprison American without charges or trial forever, what it calls "indefinite detention." The government has asserted and exercised the right to assassinate American citizens without charge or trial (trial by jury being one of the key rights bestowed on all citizens and people under US jurisdiction by the Constitution) as Obama recently ordered the assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki far from any battlefield. This is not myth, but well-known, well-reported, well-substantiated fact. The justification for these extreme expansions of government power is the War on Terror. All it takes for the government to claim and then exercise these powers is the word of one man at the top of the government, President Obama, to declare a citizen a "terrorist" without the presentation of evidence to any court or overseeing body. That's a very big and important new assertion of big government power.

I agree with you on private contractors as many have swindled us while harming our overseas efforts.

You are right in your assertion that national defense is a principal charge of government, which is why national defense should be a priority. Engaging in foreign invasions and occupations is not national defense of any sort, it is offensive warfare and occupation that military and government intelligence and analysis has repeatedly found actually further puts our nation at risk.

National defense would involve protecting and defending our nation, homeland security. A reprioritization of tight border control and protection and strict immigration reform that would prevent terrorists from entering our country (thousands cross our borders every day and all of the 9/11 terrorists came here legally) and increase in domestic policing (we were aware of all relevant details regarding the hijackers but our intelligence agencies and police didn't put the pieces together and act soon enough) would defend our nation. Significantly reduce the ability of terrorists to enter our country, be vigilant about finding, stopping, and prosecuting homegrown terrorists. That's what defending our nation entails.

Why should the government nation build in foreign countries halfway around the world? That's not national defense. If a despot in some foreign country is killing his people, that's a tragedy and a crisis, but it's none of our business and it's in no way related to the defense of our nation.

We have by far the strongest military in terms of weapons and training, with only Israel competing in terms of its individual soldiers and China in terms of its size. But we spend more than half of all discretionary spending on what is labeled defense, how much do you think is really necessary to maintain the best military to protect our homeland? Why is it so, so, so, so much more than any other nation, being fully half of all such spending worldwide and nearly ten times that of our nearest competitor, China, who has 3 times as many people, twice as many soldiers, a larger nation to protect, and has all the advanced weaponry, including state of the art planes, bombs, and even nuclear weapons, that we do?

World Wide Military Expenditures

Could it be because instead of defending our nation, that money goes towards occupying and invading foreign nations in a manner no other modern country does and the high level of privatization in the industry which sees enormous profit made for non-government entities by providing the capability to do so?

How much do you think it would cost to maintain the best military in the world, police our borders vigilantly, and investigate suspected domestic terrorists if we did not engage in invasive foreign wars? Wouldn't that be a far more effective means of ensuring terrorist attacks don't occur on our homeland while simultaneously decreasing the size, scope, and spending of the massive government?

 

[DiamondDave]

Please show one single arrest of anything beyond terrorist assistance that has arrived from any 'wireatap' under the premise of the war on terror.... please show where in war (or approved military action) we are not allowed to target enemies, even if they have been US citizens who now have committed treasonous acts and are actively fighting against our country and assisting the enemy directly?? And please note that this country in times of war has never had to stop and get a warrant (or retroactively go back and obtain a US courts warrant) for the interception of enemy communications, even if a source or destination was a citizen or was a place in the US... whether those communications be physical (paper, etc) or electronic (radio, wired signal,. etc)

National defense is not just sitting back and 'protecting the border or homeland'... it does also involve offensive actions off of US soil

 

[Munin]

Because there is nothing more evil that a successful corporation. We should all live in fear of private citizens doing well in business.

We have absolutely nothing to fear about the government taking over every aspect of our lives.

It s true that a government taking controll over every aspect of your life is a frightening reality for some people on this planet, but last time I checked US citizens are not living in a dictatorship. Any law that is signed by a government that is active now can be changed by a future government, so to insinuate that the US will become close to a dictatorship would be an idiotic statement.


What I also find frightening would be a government being controlled by huge private corporations. A government owned by the corporations, that must be what sounds like the wet dream for some republicans.

 

[Cuyo]

Corporations own the Government.

Fact.

With a few exceptions of its own power grubbing, the primary function of modern government is to enforce the will and meet the demands of the corporations that have bought and own it.

So then if this is true, the left complains about this and wants to empower government to actually expand into even more areas such as healthcare, cap and trade, etc??

Yes. We want the collective power of all of us to replace the decision-making machine that benefits a few by exploiting the masses. Based on reason and collective interest; Not profit.

 

[Dante]

I just want to know why? Why don't you want more freedom to choose what you want to do?

Do you really think government will do everything better than you would?

I just don't get it.

because it is a government by, for, and of the people.

as I said before.