Bigger or Smaller Government?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Bigger or Smaller Government?

    Starting in 1991, Somolians had a blast with their newfound uber-liberties.

    Anarchy is not the same thing as limited constitutional government. There is a very clear need for government to exist, the problem is that once it grows past a certain size it become more and more oppressive and non-responsive to the needs of it's individual citizens. The events of this past week should make this obvious.

     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Bigger or Smaller Government?

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

    Starting in 1991, Somolians had a blast with their newfound uber-liberties.

     

    Anarchy is not the same thing as limited constitutional government. There is a very clear need for government to exist, the problem is that once it grows past a certain size it become more and more oppressive and non-responsive to the needs of it's individual citizens. The events of this past week should make this obvious.

     



    Bingo.

    But don't expect the progressives here to get that point.  They are too busy hurling insults and snarky comments to discuss this point.  I wonder why?  Is it because an honest discussion on the subject inevitably leads towards smaller government?

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Bigger or Smaller Government?

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

     

    Starting in 1991, Somolians had a blast with their newfound uber-liberties.

     

    Anarchy is not the same thing as limited constitutional government. There is a very clear need for government to exist, the problem is that once it grows past a certain size it become more and more oppressive and non-responsive to the needs of it's individual citizens. The events of this past week should make this obvious.

     

     



    Bingo.

     

    But don't expect the progressives here to get that point.  They are too busy hurling insults and snarky comments to discuss this point.  I wonder why?  Is it because an honest discussion on the subject inevitably leads towards smaller government?



    This is not an honest discussion.

    Nor a good faith one, for that matter.

     

     

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Bigger or Smaller Government?

    Do you include the military in your "relationship without context"?

    I'm not sure that I understand what you're asking.

    The military is certainly a valid exercise of governmental power as long as this power is not ever directed at the citizens of the country.

    In general, the military should be only as large as it has to be to be an effective deterent of an outside invasion.

     

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Bigger or Smaller Government?

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Bigger or Smaller Government?

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

     

    Starting in 1991, Somolians had a blast with their newfound uber-liberties.

     

    Anarchy is not the same thing as limited constitutional government. There is a very clear need for government to exist, the problem is that once it grows past a certain size it become more and more oppressive and non-responsive to the needs of it's individual citizens. The events of this past week should make this obvious.

     

     



    Bingo.

     

    But don't expect the progressives here to get that point.  They are too busy hurling insults and snarky comments to discuss this point.  I wonder why?  Is it because an honest discussion on the subject inevitably leads towards smaller government?

     



    This is not an honest discussion.

     

    Nor a good faith one, for that matter.

     

     



    Sure.  The smaller government people are "politizing" the discussion towards nefarious ends.  While those on the left are caring for the poor and downtrodden.

    Yep. 

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Bigger or Smaller Government?

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

     

     

    It would seem everything would be smaller, including liberty.

     

    Quite the opposite. There is an inverse relationship between the size of government and the amount of liberty any citizen has.

     

     



    Not necessarily.

     

    Liberty has a way of not sustaining itself without support and protection.  Without the appropriate level of certainty to ensure "Liberty For All", we would devolve into a free-for-all.  Tribalism will run rampant, and liberties will be threatened.

    Of course, we can discuss what that "appropriate level" means, but that's another question entirely.

    Even tribal societies understand that if everyone doesn't work together and share responsibilities, the tribe cannot survive.  Hence the need for rules, justice and, yes, even restrictions on liberty.

    We know this implicitly, which is why we decided entrust some critical areas to government with the caveat that we - the people - also get to run for public office and make sure the public's best interests are met.

     

     




    The question is how much government?  What is the balance between government mandates and liberty?

    The left sees little room or need for liberty, and bets it all on a big government that takes care of everything.  My point at the beginning was that this is simply not attainable.  Corruption creeps in and freedom goes out.  I think the tipping point was back in the Bush administration.  The crippling of economic freedom in the Bush years put us on a path where government was the only "solution".  In this sense, Obama can't really be blamed.  He simply continued and amplified what Bush did.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Bigger or Smaller Government?

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    So how do you reconcile the obvious cognitive dissonance inherent in your argument?

    On one hand you allow for a 'large enough' military to fight off invasion but such a military would also be, by necessity, large enough to overwhelm the citizenry

    With such formidible foes, past and present, as the Warsaw Pact countries led by Russia and the People's Republic of China, the military is/was necessarily large. Much larger than any citizens army could hope to defeat, if any sized gov't decided to oppress it's people.

    And what about the intelligence agencies necessary to keep our domestic and military secrets safe from outside foes? Those intel agencies that surveil our enemies so as to know what size and shape our military needs to be in order to counter an invasion? How do you account for the size of such organizations? Or should they be abolished?

     

    I don't see any cognitive dissonance here. Defence is a valid exercise of governmental power and any nation has the right to defend itself. Maintaining a strong contitutional republic is the best way to ensure that the military retains its proper role.

    Where we go wrong is trying to defend everyone everywhere. Let them defend themselves.

     



     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Bigger or Smaller Government?

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

     

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    So how do you reconcile the obvious cognitive dissonance inherent in your argument?

     

    On one hand you allow for a 'large enough' military to fight off invasion but such a military would also be, by necessity, large enough to overwhelm the citizenry

    With such formidible foes, past and present, as the Warsaw Pact countries led by Russia and the People's Republic of China, the military is/was necessarily large. Much larger than any citizens army could hope to defeat, if any sized gov't decided to oppress it's people.

    And what about the intelligence agencies necessary to keep our domestic and military secrets safe from outside foes? Those intel agencies that surveil our enemies so as to know what size and shape our military needs to be in order to counter an invasion? How do you account for the size of such organizations? Or should they be abolished?

     

     

    I don't see any cognitive dissonance here. Defence is a valid exercise of governmental power and any nation has the right to defend itself. Maintaining a strong contitutional republic is the best way to ensure that the military retains its proper role.

    Where we go wrong is trying to defend everyone everywhere. Let them defend themselves.

     

     



     




    So no international influence?

     

    We should just let countries like Russia or China roll up smaller coutries into their sphere of influence?

    Since you didn't address the main points of the size of the US military or it's related intel branches, I'll assume that you agree that the size of the military will far exceed the possibility of any citizen army defending itself.

    The corollary is that the size of the gov't has NO impact on citizen's liberty. Gov't will always by necessity be bigger and stronger than any militia could hope to defeat.

     

    And thank you for proving your initial premise completely wrong.

    Not once did you refer to a gov't that was too big.

    Rather you are relying on the temper and tone of that gov't, not it's size.

    The truth is you don't know when a gov't is 'too big'. You have no criteria.

    You haven't proven any part of your theory but in fact shown just the opposite.



    What you seem to not be getting is that the military is a constitutionally mandated role of government, and trying to roll up every single international issue into no foreign entanglements is a tall order.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Bigger or Smaller Government?

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

     

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    So how do you reconcile the obvious cognitive dissonance inherent in your argument?

     

    On one hand you allow for a 'large enough' military to fight off invasion but such a military would also be, by necessity, large enough to overwhelm the citizenry

    With such formidible foes, past and present, as the Warsaw Pact countries led by Russia and the People's Republic of China, the military is/was necessarily large. Much larger than any citizens army could hope to defeat, if any sized gov't decided to oppress it's people.

    And what about the intelligence agencies necessary to keep our domestic and military secrets safe from outside foes? Those intel agencies that surveil our enemies so as to know what size and shape our military needs to be in order to counter an invasion? How do you account for the size of such organizations? Or should they be abolished?

     

     

    I don't see any cognitive dissonance here. Defence is a valid exercise of governmental power and any nation has the right to defend itself. Maintaining a strong contitutional republic is the best way to ensure that the military retains its proper role.

    Where we go wrong is trying to defend everyone everywhere. Let them defend themselves.

     

     



     




    So no international influence?

     

    We should just let countries like Russia or China roll up smaller coutries into their sphere of influence?

    Since you didn't address the main points of the size of the US military or it's related intel branches, I'll assume that you agree that the size of the military will far exceed the possibility of any citizen army defending itself.

    The corollary is that the size of the gov't has NO impact on citizen's liberty. Gov't will always by necessity be bigger and stronger than any militia could hope to defeat.

     

    And thank you for proving your initial premise completely wrong.

    Not once did you refer to a gov't that was too big.

    Rather you are relying on the temper and tone of that gov't, not it's size.

    The truth is you don't know when a gov't is 'too big'. You have no criteria.

    You haven't proven any part of your theory but in fact shown just the opposite.

     



    What you seem to not be getting is that the military is a constitutionally mandated role of government, and trying to roll up every single international issue into no foreign entanglements is a tall order.

     

     




     

    Ya, sorry for trying to inject some reality into your soggy heads.

    I should accept that that is a fools errand.



    umm, I think it is the other way around on this one, but you are welcome to keep trying . you might eventually have somethign useful to say.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from AlleyCatBruin. Show AlleyCatBruin's posts

    Re: Bigger or Smaller Government?

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    If there is anything we have learned this week, it is that big government is impractical.  A government so big that it singles out and targets those who argue for a smaller government is a practical lesson in what happens when we go beyond what is practical.

    How on Earth will the same institution that illegally targetted these organization going to manage our health care? 

    This is not an issue of ideology, this is a matter of common sense.  A government big enough to give you everythuing you need is a government big enough to take it all away.  This past week proves it.



    Where was your outrage when the IRS targeted liberal groups while Boosh was in office? As for the DOJ logging AP phone calls? Your republicans in Congress voted to let DOJ keep that power in place. It's legal. So, you tea baggers can keep being outraged but just remember, you are only getting what you've asked for.

     

     

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from AlleyCatBruin. Show AlleyCatBruin's posts

    Re: Bigger or Smaller Government?

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

     

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    So how do you reconcile the obvious cognitive dissonance inherent in your argument?

     

    On one hand you allow for a 'large enough' military to fight off invasion but such a military would also be, by necessity, large enough to overwhelm the citizenry

    With such formidible foes, past and present, as the Warsaw Pact countries led by Russia and the People's Republic of China, the military is/was necessarily large. Much larger than any citizens army could hope to defeat, if any sized gov't decided to oppress it's people.

    And what about the intelligence agencies necessary to keep our domestic and military secrets safe from outside foes? Those intel agencies that surveil our enemies so as to know what size and shape our military needs to be in order to counter an invasion? How do you account for the size of such organizations? Or should they be abolished?

     

     

    I don't see any cognitive dissonance here. Defence is a valid exercise of governmental power and any nation has the right to defend itself. Maintaining a strong contitutional republic is the best way to ensure that the military retains its proper role.

    Where we go wrong is trying to defend everyone everywhere. Let them defend themselves.

     

     



     




    So no international influence?

     

    We should just let countries like Russia or China roll up smaller coutries into their sphere of influence?

    Since you didn't address the main points of the size of the US military or it's related intel branches, I'll assume that you agree that the size of the military will far exceed the possibility of any citizen army defending itself.

    The corollary is that the size of the gov't has NO impact on citizen's liberty. Gov't will always by necessity be bigger and stronger than any militia could hope to defeat.

     

    And thank you for proving your initial premise completely wrong.

    Not once did you refer to a gov't that was too big.

    Rather you are relying on the temper and tone of that gov't, not it's size.

    The truth is you don't know when a gov't is 'too big'. You have no criteria.

    You haven't proven any part of your theory but in fact shown just the opposite.

     



    What you seem to not be getting is that the military is a constitutionally mandated role of government, and trying to roll up every single international issue into no foreign entanglements is a tall order.

     

     




     

    Ya, sorry for trying to inject some reality into your soggy heads.

    I should accept that that is a fools errand.

     



    umm, I think it is the other way around on this one, but you are welcome to keep trying . you might eventually have somethign useful to say.

     

     

     




    This from someone so intellectually challenged that they don't know the diffrence between the real world and the alternate reality you create for yourself between your ears.

     

     

    Here's an easy one maroon:

    "...trying to roll up every single international issue into no foreign entanglements is a tall order."

    That's the point nitwit.

    You neo-cons have this ignorance-is-bliss idea of the world and you make ridiculously simple statements based on your ridiculously simple views and are stunned, stunned when reality comes crashing down around your ears.

    Case in point: Iraq

    'Nuff said.




    Nuff Ced!

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Bigger or Smaller Government?

    In response to AlleyCatBruin's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    If there is anything we have learned this week, it is that big government is impractical.  A government so big that it singles out and targets those who argue for a smaller government is a practical lesson in what happens when we go beyond what is practical.

    How on Earth will the same institution that illegally targetted these organization going to manage our health care? 

    This is not an issue of ideology, this is a matter of common sense.  A government big enough to give you everythuing you need is a government big enough to take it all away.  This past week proves it.

     



    Where was your outrage when the IRS targeted liberal groups while Boosh was in office? As for the DOJ logging AP phone calls? Your republicans in Congress voted to let DOJ keep that power in place. It's legal. So, you tea baggers can keep being outraged but just remember, you are only getting what you've asked for.

     

     

     



    He did?  Well, do you have proof of that?

    If he did, I'm outraged.

    You will do anything to try to get the focus off the fallen leader.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Bigger or Smaller Government?

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

     

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    So how do you reconcile the obvious cognitive dissonance inherent in your argument?

     

    On one hand you allow for a 'large enough' military to fight off invasion but such a military would also be, by necessity, large enough to overwhelm the citizenry

    With such formidible foes, past and present, as the Warsaw Pact countries led by Russia and the People's Republic of China, the military is/was necessarily large. Much larger than any citizens army could hope to defeat, if any sized gov't decided to oppress it's people.

    And what about the intelligence agencies necessary to keep our domestic and military secrets safe from outside foes? Those intel agencies that surveil our enemies so as to know what size and shape our military needs to be in order to counter an invasion? How do you account for the size of such organizations? Or should they be abolished?

     

     

    I don't see any cognitive dissonance here. Defence is a valid exercise of governmental power and any nation has the right to defend itself. Maintaining a strong contitutional republic is the best way to ensure that the military retains its proper role.

    Where we go wrong is trying to defend everyone everywhere. Let them defend themselves.

     

     



     




    So no international influence?

     

    We should just let countries like Russia or China roll up smaller coutries into their sphere of influence?

    Since you didn't address the main points of the size of the US military or it's related intel branches, I'll assume that you agree that the size of the military will far exceed the possibility of any citizen army defending itself.

    The corollary is that the size of the gov't has NO impact on citizen's liberty. Gov't will always by necessity be bigger and stronger than any militia could hope to defeat.

     

    And thank you for proving your initial premise completely wrong.

    Not once did you refer to a gov't that was too big.

    Rather you are relying on the temper and tone of that gov't, not it's size.

    The truth is you don't know when a gov't is 'too big'. You have no criteria.

    You haven't proven any part of your theory but in fact shown just the opposite.

     



    What you seem to not be getting is that the military is a constitutionally mandated role of government, and trying to roll up every single international issue into no foreign entanglements is a tall order.

     

     




     

    Ya, sorry for trying to inject some reality into your soggy heads.

    I should accept that that is a fools errand.

     



    umm, I think it is the other way around on this one, but you are welcome to keep trying . you might eventually have somethign useful to say.

     

     

     




    This from someone so intellectually challenged that they don't know the diffrence between the real world and the alternate reality you create for yourself between your ears.

     

     

    Here's an easy one maroon:

    "...trying to roll up every single international issue into no foreign entanglements is a tall order."

    That's the point nitwit.

    You neo-cons have this ignorance-is-bliss idea of the world and you make ridiculously simple statements based on your ridiculously simple views and are stunned, stunned when reality comes crashing down around your ears.

    Case in point: Iraq

    'Nuff said.




    The point is, and this is why liberals always fail dramatically at foriegn affairs, is that it is a big bad world out there, different circumstances, different times, somethings important, somethings not.

    Liberals don't get this, and ham-fist every foreign affair issue, typically with an apology for being so insensitive.

    Tray to get your soggy brain somewhat wrapped around this.

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Bigger or Smaller Government?

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

     

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    So how do you reconcile the obvious cognitive dissonance inherent in your argument?

     

    On one hand you allow for a 'large enough' military to fight off invasion but such a military would also be, by necessity, large enough to overwhelm the citizenry

    With such formidible foes, past and present, as the Warsaw Pact countries led by Russia and the People's Republic of China, the military is/was necessarily large. Much larger than any citizens army could hope to defeat, if any sized gov't decided to oppress it's people.

    And what about the intelligence agencies necessary to keep our domestic and military secrets safe from outside foes? Those intel agencies that surveil our enemies so as to know what size and shape our military needs to be in order to counter an invasion? How do you account for the size of such organizations? Or should they be abolished?

     

     

    I don't see any cognitive dissonance here. Defence is a valid exercise of governmental power and any nation has the right to defend itself. Maintaining a strong contitutional republic is the best way to ensure that the military retains its proper role.

    Where we go wrong is trying to defend everyone everywhere. Let them defend themselves.

     

     



     




    So no international influence?

     

    We should just let countries like Russia or China roll up smaller coutries into their sphere of influence?

    Since you didn't address the main points of the size of the US military or it's related intel branches, I'll assume that you agree that the size of the military will far exceed the possibility of any citizen army defending itself.

    The corollary is that the size of the gov't has NO impact on citizen's liberty. Gov't will always by necessity be bigger and stronger than any militia could hope to defeat.

     

    And thank you for proving your initial premise completely wrong.

    Not once did you refer to a gov't that was too big.

    Rather you are relying on the temper and tone of that gov't, not it's size.

    The truth is you don't know when a gov't is 'too big'. You have no criteria.

    You haven't proven any part of your theory but in fact shown just the opposite.

     



    What you seem to not be getting is that the military is a constitutionally mandated role of government, and trying to roll up every single international issue into no foreign entanglements is a tall order.

     

     




     

    Ya, sorry for trying to inject some reality into your soggy heads.

    I should accept that that is a fools errand.

     



    umm, I think it is the other way around on this one, but you are welcome to keep trying . you might eventually have somethign useful to say.

     

     

     




    This from someone so intellectually challenged that they don't know the diffrence between the real world and the alternate reality you create for yourself between your ears.

     

     

    Here's an easy one maroon:

    "...trying to roll up every single international issue into no foreign entanglements is a tall order."

    That's the point nitwit.

    You neo-cons have this ignorance-is-bliss idea of the world and you make ridiculously simple statements based on your ridiculously simple views and are stunned, stunned when reality comes crashing down around your ears.

    Case in point: Iraq

    'Nuff said.

     




    The point is, and this is why liberals always fail dramatically at foriegn affairs, is that it is a big bad world out there, different circumstances, different times, somethings important, somethings not.

     

    Liberals don't get this, and ham-fist every foreign affair issue, typically with an apology for being so insensitive.

    Tray to get your soggy brain somewhat wrapped around this.

     




     

    Psychological projection as an argument, how original from the neo-cons.



    Oh the irony....

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share