To me it should mean a neutral country since military might is where real government spending lies. I also think it should mean there should be a minimum of entitlement programs and a focus on education and infrastructure. Education to bring qualified people into the workforce, infrastructure simply because I don't think any government can cut spending on it.
"Small government" is a diffusion of responsibility of society's troubles onto the government. That everything wrong in the world can be rectified by scaling back the government's power, and then magically everything would be better.
A government that provides basic services (roads, schools, etc.) to it's citizens, provide minimal welfare, and protects them from others who would harm them.
Such a government wouldn't be all about social engineering, wealth redistribution, protecting people from themselves (ex. seatbelt laws), or socialism (ex. Obamacare).
A friend claims that ultimately everyone wants the same thing from the government just in radically differant amounts, I guess that's true.
Small government in theory states that there are limits on what government should do. The government should provide police services, but not manufacture televisions. There are also limits to the degree to which these services are provided. Hiring 50% of the population to be personal bodyguards of the other 50% would not be small government, even if police services are appropriate for government to provide.
However, small government is necessarily an arbitrary term. There is no reason why certain services are fundamental and others are excesses. Why education but not medicine in the US? Why education through high school, but no further and no less far? When people say small government they generally mean "The government that does only the few things that I want."
Small government also ignores another problem. Government must, by necessity define the scope and nature of governmental powers. Because of this, any system that accepts the need for government to determine the scope and nature of its powers but objects to that determination is fundamentally flawed.
A government that provides basic services (roads, schools, etc.) to it's citizens, provide minimal welfare, and protects them from others who would harm them.
Such a government wouldn't be all about social engineering, wealth redistribution, protecting people from themselves (ex. seatbelt laws), or socialism (ex. Obamacare).
So how do you explain conservatives who want small government via eliminating the department of education?
All governments are involved in social engineering, if they weren't, there wouldn't be a point in government.
Wealth distribution is a term that is used a lot by people who don't realize that they support it but just in the opposite direction.
There is not a single law that was passed to protect people from themselves.
Obamacare a) doesn't exist, b) the ACA is not socialism, socialism would have been expanding medicare to cover everyone, it is more of a mercantilism policy that forces you to buy private insurance.
Small government, like all political catch-phrases, is just an empty buzzword that means whatever its users need it to mean in the moment. Governments should be small when they do things we don't like.
Small government as it was taught to me back in the stone age, is to keep the military strong and the road ways usable. All other issues would be redirected to the states. This would cause not all states to be the same and people would gravitate toward the states they felt were run the way they wanted.
Have to say now its just a buzz word that doesnt mean much.
Ultimately it means different things to different people I guess.
I know quite a fair amount of libertarians, and they see minimal government as providing 3 services:
a) public police
b) public courts
c) a national (defesive) military.
Some anarchists I know see 'solving' the problem of national defense being a public good the only obstacle to a stateless society (beyond implementation problems). They believe private courts and police forces to be unproblematic (I'd probably agree).
So how do you explain conservatives who want small government via eliminating the department of education?
I dont want to get into a semantics debate, but I would not consider anyone I know who advocates elimination of public education a conservative (a visionary maybe)
There is not a single law that was passed to protect people from themselves.
There are large amounts of paternalistic legislation/regulations in modern democracies. Almost all of it contrary to the wealth and happiness of people and for the benefit of politicians and their chums
Foreigner
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
---
You colonization of language is not appreciated.
I dont want to get into a semantics debate, but I would not consider anyone I know who advocates elimination of public education a conservative (a visionary maybe)
There are large amounts of paternalistic legislation/regulations in modern democracies. Almost all of it contrary to the wealth and happiness of people and for the benefit of politicians and their chums
Foreigner
It isn't that they want to get rid of public education per se, they just want education to be left completely up to the states, you know, if Alabama wants to teach intelligent design instead of evolution theory in their science classes, some people say that should be their right.
And any law you point to that you say protects you from yourself, I say is a law that protects society and others from your stupidity.
It isn't that they want to get rid of public education per se, they just want education to be left completely up to the states, you know, if Alabama wants to teach intelligent design instead of evolution theory in their science classes, some people say that should be their right.
And its relevance to a discussion about goverment size is what, then?
And any law you point to that you say protects you from yourself, I say is a law that protects society and others from your stupidity
I guess the burden is on me to provide an example that contradict this. I will provide just one to start with. Health regulations for food providers. How do health regulations on food protect society from stupid consumers?
It is not clear at all that smaller government means bigger businesses (in the sense of large corporations with large amounts of corporate power as opposed to larger small and medium sized businesses) . Do you care to explain or shall we just ignore you comment?
To some others I suspect it means, "government that does only the things I want them to do, nothing more."
Quote from FuriouslySleepingIdea »
Government must, by necessity define the scope and nature of governmental powers. Because of this, any system that accepts the need for government to determine the scope and nature of its powers but objects to that determination is fundamentally flawed.
A government that provides basic services (roads, schools, etc.) to it's citizens, provide minimal welfare, and protects them from others who would harm them.
Such a government wouldn't be all about social engineering, wealth redistribution, protecting people from themselves (ex. seatbelt laws), or socialism (ex. Obamacare).
A friend claims that ultimately everyone wants the same thing from the government just in radically differant amounts, I guess that's true.
It means different things to different people. Some people say they are a supporter of "small government", but at the same time want a huge military and are fighting for an amendment that says marriage is between a man and a woman. That doesn't sound like "small government" to me. The term really has no meaning, it just depends on who you are talking too.
I like to think of myself as a "small government" kinda guy. So to me it means the government protects us from others (other countries, terrorists, murderers etc.), provides schools(on a state level...I am for the abolishing of the DOE), provides us with roads and some other infrastructure, provides us with a public court system, provides some sort of social safety net, and puts some minor regulations on business. There are other things my version of government would do, but those are the main ones. It would stay out of marriage, and drugs, and all that stuff. Maybe that's not "small government" to you, but like I said, it depends on who you are talking to.
Skullclamp cannot really be considered a best for it was banned upon release. I think the best card/most broken card on that list has to be Bloodbraid Elf. That card was too busted.
I would love no medicare/medicaid and no social security, but then again I'm not big into the small government idea as presented by the people that say it.
I'm constantly surprised that so many people list military might in a small government. That's the vast majority of the budget.
And its relevance to a discussion about goverment size is what, then?
Because conservatives (most notably the tea party) want the department of education and departments of energy, the EPA, FDA and all the other departments gone to make the government small again.
I guess the burden is on me to provide an example that contradict this. I will provide just one to start with. Health regulations for food providers. How do health regulations on food protect society from stupid consumers?
Because when a food company passes on dangerous food to consumers, consumers get sick and lose productivity in their jobs, or die and all society's investment in them is lost.
I'm constantly surprised that so many people list military might in a small government. That's the vast majority of the budget.
That's the irony of many of today's loudest "small government" proponents (note: Not most libertarians; I'm specifically referring to the far-right "Tea Party" mentality). They're all for gutting government of everything except that which takes up the largest percentage of the budget.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Winner of the SCG Invitational, Somerset, NJ, Jul 26-28, 2013
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Las Vegas, NV, Dec 13-15, 2013
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Somerset, NJ, Aug 28-30, 2015
Winner of SCG Worcester Team Sealed Open with Gerard Fabiano and Curtis Sheu, September 28, 2013
That's the irony of many of today's loudest "small government" proponents (note: Not most libertarians; I'm specifically referring to the far-right "Tea Party" mentality). They're all for gutting government of everything except that which takes up the largest percentage of the budget.
The largest percentage (according to the wikipedia page) is Medicaid/care ($793B), the next biggest is SS ($701B), and then defense ($698B). And discretionary is right behind ($660B).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The explosion that... destroyed our city, razed our home, and turned our fields into wasteland was nothing compared to what was now happening to those who survived.
Different things to different people. When a visionary conservative comes up with an idea for what small government in the 21st century means, it won't be difficult to distinguish them from the current crowd of intellectuals on either side of the fence.
Traditional small government ideas are championed by Barry Goldwater, the 'libertarianism with a state' crowd. Most of the Tea Party guys are probably at least half on Goldwater's boat, social issues notwithstanding. I'd imagine small government in practice would look like Texas without the Medicare/aid/SS programs, but more funding for education and infrastructure.
The largest percentage (according to the wikipedia page) is Medicaid/care ($793B), the next biggest is SS ($701B), and then defense ($698B). And discretionary is right behind ($660B).
Never trust Wikipedia, I once read on there that Jesus was black and that Ronald Reagan was the devil. (Im asuming that came from a Boondocks fan) We spend more on military then the rest of the world combined and doubled. and takes up 40% of the U.S. budget, and that was taught to me by a conservetive professor too.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
How it is used? "The government doesn't do anything unless I agree with it!"
:EDH:
WR Gisela, Blade of Goldnight (HOLD/100) WR
WB Teysa, Orzhov Scion (HOLD/100) WB
Such a government wouldn't be all about social engineering, wealth redistribution, protecting people from themselves (ex. seatbelt laws), or socialism (ex. Obamacare).
A friend claims that ultimately everyone wants the same thing from the government just in radically differant amounts, I guess that's true.
However, small government is necessarily an arbitrary term. There is no reason why certain services are fundamental and others are excesses. Why education but not medicine in the US? Why education through high school, but no further and no less far? When people say small government they generally mean "The government that does only the few things that I want."
Small government also ignores another problem. Government must, by necessity define the scope and nature of governmental powers. Because of this, any system that accepts the need for government to determine the scope and nature of its powers but objects to that determination is fundamentally flawed.
So how do you explain conservatives who want small government via eliminating the department of education?
All governments are involved in social engineering, if they weren't, there wouldn't be a point in government.
Wealth distribution is a term that is used a lot by people who don't realize that they support it but just in the opposite direction.
There is not a single law that was passed to protect people from themselves.
Obamacare a) doesn't exist, b) the ACA is not socialism, socialism would have been expanding medicare to cover everyone, it is more of a mercantilism policy that forces you to buy private insurance.
Have to say now its just a buzz word that doesnt mean much.
I know quite a fair amount of libertarians, and they see minimal government as providing 3 services:
a) public police
b) public courts
c) a national (defesive) military.
Some anarchists I know see 'solving' the problem of national defense being a public good the only obstacle to a stateless society (beyond implementation problems). They believe private courts and police forces to be unproblematic (I'd probably agree).
I dont want to get into a semantics debate, but I would not consider anyone I know who advocates elimination of public education a conservative (a visionary maybe)
There are large amounts of paternalistic legislation/regulations in modern democracies. Almost all of it contrary to the wealth and happiness of people and for the benefit of politicians and their chums
Foreigner
You colonization of language is not appreciated.
BRGotta Get or Get GotRB
(Avatar courtesy of Heylookitsamoose)
It isn't that they want to get rid of public education per se, they just want education to be left completely up to the states, you know, if Alabama wants to teach intelligent design instead of evolution theory in their science classes, some people say that should be their right.
And any law you point to that you say protects you from yourself, I say is a law that protects society and others from your stupidity.
And its relevance to a discussion about goverment size is what, then?
I guess the burden is on me to provide an example that contradict this. I will provide just one to start with. Health regulations for food providers. How do health regulations on food protect society from stupid consumers?
It is not clear at all that smaller government means bigger businesses (in the sense of large corporations with large amounts of corporate power as opposed to larger small and medium sized businesses) . Do you care to explain or shall we just ignore you comment?
Foreigner
You colonization of language is not appreciated.
To some others I suspect it means, "government that does only the things I want them to do, nothing more."
I don't understand what that means.
0%!
I like to think of myself as a "small government" kinda guy. So to me it means the government protects us from others (other countries, terrorists, murderers etc.), provides schools(on a state level...I am for the abolishing of the DOE), provides us with roads and some other infrastructure, provides us with a public court system, provides some sort of social safety net, and puts some minor regulations on business. There are other things my version of government would do, but those are the main ones. It would stay out of marriage, and drugs, and all that stuff. Maybe that's not "small government" to you, but like I said, it depends on who you are talking to.
Of course I"m curious how many proponents of small government would truly enjoy a world with no medicare/medicaid, no social security.
I'm constantly surprised that so many people list military might in a small government. That's the vast majority of the budget.
Because conservatives (most notably the tea party) want the department of education and departments of energy, the EPA, FDA and all the other departments gone to make the government small again.
Because when a food company passes on dangerous food to consumers, consumers get sick and lose productivity in their jobs, or die and all society's investment in them is lost.
That's the irony of many of today's loudest "small government" proponents (note: Not most libertarians; I'm specifically referring to the far-right "Tea Party" mentality). They're all for gutting government of everything except that which takes up the largest percentage of the budget.
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Las Vegas, NV, Dec 13-15, 2013
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Somerset, NJ, Aug 28-30, 2015
Winner of SCG Worcester Team Sealed Open with Gerard Fabiano and Curtis Sheu, September 28, 2013
twitter
The largest percentage (according to the wikipedia page) is Medicaid/care ($793B), the next biggest is SS ($701B), and then defense ($698B). And discretionary is right behind ($660B).
The explosion that... destroyed our city, razed our home, and turned our fields into wasteland was nothing compared to what was now happening to those who survived.
Traditional small government ideas are championed by Barry Goldwater, the 'libertarianism with a state' crowd. Most of the Tea Party guys are probably at least half on Goldwater's boat, social issues notwithstanding. I'd imagine small government in practice would look like Texas without the Medicare/aid/SS programs, but more funding for education and infrastructure.
Never trust Wikipedia, I once read on there that Jesus was black and that Ronald Reagan was the devil. (Im asuming that came from a Boondocks fan) We spend more on military then the rest of the world combined and doubled. and takes up 40% of the U.S. budget, and that was taught to me by a conservetive professor too.