Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-16-2013, 10:19 AM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
10,581 posts, read 9,779,270 times
Reputation: 4174

Advertisements

(A conservative manifesto)

Government is necessary for some things, but should do as little as possible, and should confine itself to important functions that private persons or groups CANNOT DO AT ALL. Examples include National Defense, smoothing the course of interstate commerce with minimal interference in that commerce, conducting foreign relations, setting national standards for money, weights, and measures, dispassionately pursuing and prosecuting criminal behavior, etc.

Occasional events like wars might cause govt departments designed to deal with them, to grow to a size appropriate to do so. But afterward govt must reduce back to its smaller size.

If you feel that government can do something better than private people or groups can do it, that's insufficient reason to grant govt authority to do it. If private people can do it at all, it must be denied to govt unequivocally.

The reason for these restrictions, is that:
(a) Government cannot do anything well, due in part to the fact that no one can compete with it, and will always be rife with sloth and inefficiency;
(b) Government's only ability is to restrict and punish its citizens. This is activity extremely vulnerable to abuse, and capable of damaging and destroying lives by the millions if not carefully watched and restrained.
(c) History grimly shows that when government is allowed more authority than necessary, the imperfect humans it's made of begin to abuse that power, virtually every time. And with time, that abuse only increases, often rising to disastrous levels.

For these reasons, the powers given to government must be carefull spelled out and restricted, with those it restricts retaining full power to change or abolish it.

Last edited by Little-Acorn; 11-16-2013 at 10:31 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-16-2013, 10:38 AM
 
Location: Just over the horizon
18,453 posts, read 7,081,915 times
Reputation: 11699
Because gov't has demonstrated time and again that when you give them an inch of power they wil take a mile.
Besides, every time gov't takes on a responability it removes that responability from the people and along with it goes the moral requirements of society to help their fellow man on a one to one basis.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2013, 10:38 AM
 
Location: Wherever I happen to be at the moment
1,228 posts, read 1,368,631 times
Reputation: 1836
Sounds almost like a recitation of the 10th Amendment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2013, 10:41 AM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
10,581 posts, read 9,779,270 times
Reputation: 4174
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghostly1 View Post
Sounds almost like a recitation of the 10th Amendment.
Isn't it funny how that works out?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2013, 10:43 AM
 
3,404 posts, read 3,448,351 times
Reputation: 1684
I second this thread.. Call for a vote!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2013, 10:46 AM
NCN
 
Location: NC/SC Border Patrol
21,662 posts, read 25,617,651 times
Reputation: 24373
The only reason I have found in the constitution that a government should do is keep us safe so we can do for ourselves. Any time our government has ever started doing anything else, it causes the American people trouble and takes away our freedom.

It bothers me that so many in our country do not realize how destructive communism and socialism are to the individual. You may be in hard times now, but in a free country one always has the hope to improve themselves.

There is nothing worse than being frightened of your government. When government gets too much power fear reigns.

I was told in a doctors office this week that I no longer need a pap test every year because I am over 65 years old. I don't know whose idea this was, but I am certainly going to find out. I have lost 3 siblings and a father to cancer. It did not make me feel good to be told that. At least in a free country I can decide to have the test on my own. When will that option cease with what is going on in our country today?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2013, 11:15 AM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
10,581 posts, read 9,779,270 times
Reputation: 4174
Quote:
Originally Posted by NCN View Post
The only reason I have found in the constitution that a government should do is keep us safe so we can do for ourselves.
I agree 90%. One small quibble: Government cannot keep us safe, since it's not a safe world. Giving them authority to do that, gives them unlimited license to control others. What government should do, is keep us unbothered by those who would unjustly bother us.

A slight but important change!

Quote:
I was told in a doctors office this week that I no longer need a pap test every year because I am over 65 years old. I don't know whose idea this was, but I am certainly going to find out. I have lost 3 siblings and a father to cancer. It did not make me feel good to be told that. At least in a free country I can decide to have the test on my own. When will that option cease with what is going on in our country today?
Jan. 1, 2014.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2013, 11:37 AM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
10,581 posts, read 9,779,270 times
Reputation: 4174
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tempus Fugit View Post
Hardly. More like a "libertarian manifesto", since mainstream conservatives support the Patriot Act and plenty of big government policies.
Looks like we have another person who doesn't even know what conservatism is. Probably mistaking Republicans for conservatives, yet again.

Quote:
I don't understand your reasoning here.
That's right, you don't understand.

Quote:
There is very little that individuals or private groups cannot do at all;
Exactly my point.

Quote:
isn't it a more rational criteria to limit the government to what it can do better than aforementioned groups?
No, for the reasons given in the OP.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2013, 11:41 AM
 
21,461 posts, read 10,562,304 times
Reputation: 14111
Quote:
Originally Posted by NCN View Post
I was told in a doctors office this week that I no longer need a pap test every year because I am over 65 years old. I don't know whose idea this was, but I am certainly going to find out. I have lost 3 siblings and a father to cancer. It did not make me feel good to be told that. At least in a free country I can decide to have the test on my own. When will that option cease with what is going on in our country today?
I think the reasoning behind this is because pap smears are to check for cervical cancer, which is caused by a sexually transmitted disease (HPV). It must be that they assume a woman in her sixties has passed the age of picking up STDs. What they should do is test for ovarian cancer, but I don't even think they require that at any age and insurance won't pay for it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2013, 11:44 AM
 
21,461 posts, read 10,562,304 times
Reputation: 14111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tempus Fugit View Post
Technically can be done by individuals and private groups. Conservatives create a double standard for the military, because excepting libertarians, despite what they say "small government" is not an ideological principle but rather a tool to be used and discarded for what they think is right, just like how liberals don't consider "big government" an ideology as much as a tool that sometimes, by our contentions, works better.

I would most certainly disagree with your assessment, since private people actually can and have conducted national defense, but you clearly recognize that a national military is far better at it.
It was never intended for the United States to have a standing army, which is why the 2nd Amendment talks about well-regulated militias. I think the founders were extremely firm on the idea of no standing armies, since that is what the British had.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:08 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top