Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For all their handwringing over "sharia law", you'll see that the social conservative and islamist agendas are virtually identical. The only difference is one does it in the name of God, the other in the name of Allah. As far as economics go, Saudi Arabia has an economic distribution where the wealthy control virtually then entire system, and there is widespread unemployment and poverty even as they import cheap labor. And then there's the Saudi model of Democracy, which is essentially no power to the people except for limited control over local issues. Power is inherited along with weath.
So that's the conservative goal for the U.S.: turn it into a Christian version of Saudi Arabia.
That would be the stage of economic succession called kings and tyrants.
Republicans, conservatives, tea partiers, and libertarians love to talk about the government doing less and shrinking government. I'm just curious if those who think government should be smaller, or shouldn't do much, could point to a country where their political philosophy is currently put in place and is showing good results.
America, without liberal policies, worked well for almost three centuries.
America, without liberal policies, worked well for almost three centuries.
I started to say this. Then the trail of tears, "banana republics" and slavery popped into my mind. Not exactly something we want to revisit.
That doesn't mean Indians didn't murder immigrants and banana republics didn't provide some good to their community. You can't bring people up by firing them from the lessor of 80 evils...
Republicans, conservatives, tea partiers, and libertarians love to talk about the government doing less and shrinking government. I'm just curious if those who think government should be smaller, or shouldn't do much, could point to a country where their political philosophy is currently put in place and is showing good results.
Well the answer is everywhere, where it has been tried.
Say, now maybe you can list for me, everywhere big government liberalism has failed, or is failing.
Republicans, conservatives, tea partiers, and libertarians love to talk about the government doing less and shrinking government. I'm just curious if those who think government should be smaller, or shouldn't do much, could point to a country where their political philosophy is currently put in place and is showing good results.
I get the feeling you are posting this with the intent of proving that group wrong. Whether I am right or wrong on my perception I will comment on the small government principle.
If you look closely in the Constitution, the Founding Fathers had in mind a small government regarding less intrusion on people's lives.
They wrote it encouraging commerce, to protect commerce, to provide security of the states.
The enumerated obligations of the states had to do with subjects mostly to protect commerce and the nation and to enforce justice.
Also, notice that they did not even include much on the area of rights of the people. Some of the those involved in drafting that document felt personal rights issues belonged to the states to handle, not a central government.
As a compromise because of so much debate they approved the Constitution with the promise that ten ammendents would be included later. The were included what are not called the Bill of Rights. Did you know that George Mason declined signing the Constitution because those rights were not included?
The Constitution was written with the intent of the states handle their own affair, pretty much. The federal government was there to protect the states and intercomerce between the states and protect commerce with foreign nations. To raise armies to protect the secuirty of the states. So yes, in my opinion they wanted a small government to handle these areas, no more.
However, in time the federal government little by little started to creep in with laws to control the states more and more. It has grown to be a big monster that has been involved more and more in your life and in mine.
The Marshall Court started this process little by little. Now the federal government is so entrenched in our daily lives and it is difficult to take it out now.
The government should do enought to protect us and protect our interests abroad but when it comes to other issues, the states are the ones to handle that as far as I am concerned.
Have you ever read the Tragedy of Commons? That is a good one to read because it helps you understand and see how the Founding Fathers gave the responsibility to the federal government those areas of common interests to ALL.
I will give you an example:
Security. We ALL need security of the nation. If the government was to tell everybody "Everybody needs to have their own rifle, gun, etc. to protect the nation from an invader" the odds are that not everybody will buy a rifle, gun, etc. to protect that nation. What to do, raise taxes to raise an Army ready for such protection. That makes sense.
However, prostitution? The federal government is not there to decide what a woman can or cannot do with her body. At best the states may decide that. Even then I question that because the spirit of the Bill of Rights is pretty much on equal rights for all. So a woman has a right just as a man to decide what to do with her body so to me is not an issue to discuss. What she does in the privacy of her home, hotel, etc. it is her business.
The same with drinking alcohol, drugs, abortion, gay marriage, etc.
So yes, a small government is enough to handle the original intent of the spirit of the Constitution.
How much to do? If you expect the federal government to give more money for social issues, how much to pay people (minimum wages), etc. then I am not there with you. Margaret Thatcher wisely said that Marxist views are not good becasue eventually you run out of money. That is one of the reasons we are having economic problems. The government is running out of money because the people want more and more. You give people more and for a while they are happy but later it is not enough anymore. They want more. That has been going one as time passes by as more programs are instituted and more departments are created to run them. With that comes monster bereaucracies that cost more and more taxpayer money. Now, when anyone tries to cut corners to meet the budget limitations, everybody cries!!!!
At your home? Do you live within your means? I venture to guess you do. If you are a responsible spender you will cut down on maybe going to the movies and other areas to meet your budget limitation. As a nation, why should it be any different? Not to me. Take care.
I get the feeling you are posting this with the intent of proving that group wrong. Whether I am right or wrong on my perception I will comment on the small government principle.
If you look closely in the Constitution, the Founding Fathers had in mind a small government regarding less intrusion on people's lives.
They wrote it encouraging commerce, to protect commerce, to provide security of the states.
The enumerated obligations of the states had to do with subjects mostly to protect commerce and the nation and to enforce justice.
Also, notice that they did not even include much on the area of rights of the people. Some of the those involved in drafting that document felt personal rights issues belonged to the states to handle, not a central government.
As a compromise because of so much debate they approved the Constitution with the promise that ten ammendents would be included later. The were included what are not called the Bill of Rights. Did you know that George Mason declined signing the Constitution because those rights were not included?
The Constitution was written with the intent of the states handle their own affair, pretty much. The federal government was there to protect the states and intercomerce between the states and protect commerce with foreign nations. To raise armies to protect the secuirty of the states. So yes, in my opinion they wanted a small government to handle these areas, no more.
However, in time the federal government little by little started to creep in with laws to control the states more and more. It has grown to be a big monster that has been involved more and more in your life and in mine.
The Marshall Court started this process little by little. Now the federal government is so entrenched in our daily lives and it is difficult to take it out now.
The government should do enought to protect us and protect our interests abroad but when it comes to other issues, the states are the ones to handle that as far as I am concerned.
Have you ever read the Tragedy of Commons? That is a good one to read because it helps you understand and see how the Founding Fathers gave the responsibility to the federal government those areas of common interests to ALL.
I will give you an example:
Security. We ALL need security of the nation. If the government was to tell everybody "Everybody needs to have their own rifle, gun, etc. to protect the nation from an invader" the odds are that not everybody will buy a rifle, gun, etc. to protect that nation. What to do, raise taxes to raise an Army ready for such protection. That makes sense.
However, prostitution? The federal government is not there to decide what a woman can or cannot do with her body. At best the states may decide that. Even then I question that because the spirit of the Bill of Rights is pretty much on equal rights for all. So a woman has a right just as a man to decide what to do with her body so to me is not an issue to discuss. What she does in the privacy of her home, hotel, etc. it is her business.
The same with drinking alcohol, drugs, abortion, gay marriage, etc.
So yes, a small government is enough to handle the original intent of the spirit of the Constitution.
How much to do? If you expect the federal government to give more money for social issues, how much to pay people (minimum wages), etc. then I am not there with you. Margaret Thatcher wisely said that Marxist views are not good becasue eventually you run out of money. That is one of the reasons we are having economic problems. The government is running out of money because the people want more and more. You give people more and for a while they are happy but later it is not enough anymore. They want more. That has been going one as time passes by as more programs are instituted and more departments are created to run them. With that comes monster bereaucracies that cost more and more taxpayer money. Now, when anyone tries to cut corners to meet the budget limitations, everybody cries!!!!
At your home? Do you live within your means? I venture to guess you do. If you are a responsible spender you will cut down on maybe going to the movies and other areas to meet your budget limitation. As a nation, why should it be any different? Not to me. Take care.
Outstanding!
Great read!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
