http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnHawk … l_children
a good article about "Mother Govt." that pretty much puts it in a nutshell for me.
a good article about "Mother Govt." that pretty much puts it in a nutshell for me.
I think its been established by now that too much government is a bad thing, and too little government is also a bad thing. Hasn't this debate been done enough already?
Not when those on here are content and defend their big govt. and tell me just what the articles says, I am greedy and unfair.nukchebi0 wrote:
I think its been established by now that too much government is a bad thing, and too little government is also a bad thing. Hasn't this debate been done enough already?
Like most things in life, it's a balance.lowing wrote:
Not when those on here are content and defend their big govt. and tell me just what the articles says, I am greedy and unfair.nukchebi0 wrote:
I think its been established by now that too much government is a bad thing, and too little government is also a bad thing. Hasn't this debate been done enough already?
The harsh reality of life in a free society is that sometimes the government is the only thing that can protect the public from the oppression by the elite.
Antitrust laws were born out of a need to reign in the power of monopolistic industry. Environmental laws were born out of a need to keep industry from polluting public resources. The end to racial segregation had to come from federal intervention.
So while I support the general idea behind smaller government, I think it should be made clear that a certain amount of intervention is necessary.
To trust the private sector to completely regulate itself is madness, just like trusting the government to run everything is.
I agree, we are just slipping off of the balance bar toward big govt.Turquoise wrote:
Like most things in life, it's a balance.lowing wrote:
Not when those on here are content and defend their big govt. and tell me just what the articles says, I am greedy and unfair.nukchebi0 wrote:
I think its been established by now that too much government is a bad thing, and too little government is also a bad thing. Hasn't this debate been done enough already?
The harsh reality of life in a free society is that sometimes the government is the only thing that can protect the public from the oppression by the elite.
Antitrust laws were born out of a need to reign in the power of monopolistic industry. Environmental laws were born out of a need to keep industry from polluting public resources. The end to racial segregation had to come from federal intervention.
So while I support the general idea behind smaller government, I think it should be made clear that a certain amount of intervention is necessary.
To trust the private sector to completely regulate itself is madness, just like trusting the government to run everything is.
That wasn't a point of contention, I thought. It isn't from me, at least.
I don't think many people on here are in favour of big government.
Shhh, atleast he isnt talking about moozlumznukchebi0 wrote:
I think its been established by now that too much government is a bad thing, and too little government is also a bad thing. Hasn't this debate been done enough already?
I find that hard to believe, since socialism is synonymous with big govt. Or who exactly is bringing all that wonderful free stuff to the masses?ghettoperson wrote:
I don't think many people on here are in favour of big government.
Perhaps I think my government should be small in places you'd rather it was big, to compensate?
Yawn. There has to be balance between too little and too much government. It's a constantly changing balance point dependent on dynamic socio-economic factors. I'm fairly confident that the US has the least amount of government in the western world and is currently nursing a Republican administration hangover that has led to advocates of bigger government getting into power. If they go too far they'll fuck things up - just like the Republicans did with their unflinching trust in lightly regulated markets to deliver a stable and harmonious society. The middle path - slow and steady wins the race.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-12-20 16:10:33)
I think you'll find that even the most conservative among us aren't against a certain level of government. I support states rights. I think the states should be empowered more. For you to understand why I'm against an overbearing federal government try imaging the whole of the EU being administered under one rule. I think I've already seen Ireland's answer.CameronPoe wrote:
Yawn. There has to be balance between too little and too much government. It's a constantly changing balance point dependent on dynamic socio-economic factors. I'm fairly confident that the US has the least amount of government in the western world and is currently nursing a Republican administration hangover that has led to advocates of bigger government getting into power. If they go too far they'll fuck things up - just like the Republicans did with their unflinching trust in lightly regulated markets to deliver a stable and harmonious society. The middle path - slow and steady wins the race.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I agree with the spirit of this post, although we tried that states rights thing before and it didn't work out too well.Kmarion wrote:
I think you'll find that even the most conservative among us aren't against a certain level of government. I support states rights. I think the states should be empowered more. For you to understand why I'm against an overbearing federal government try imaging the whole of the EU being administered under one rule. I think I've already seen Ireland's answer.CameronPoe wrote:
Yawn. There has to be balance between too little and too much government. It's a constantly changing balance point dependent on dynamic socio-economic factors. I'm fairly confident that the US has the least amount of government in the western world and is currently nursing a Republican administration hangover that has led to advocates of bigger government getting into power. If they go too far they'll fuck things up - just like the Republicans did with their unflinching trust in lightly regulated markets to deliver a stable and harmonious society. The middle path - slow and steady wins the race.
We tried the "too much state's rights" thing, and it didn't work. Its a good thing, though, that they don't have more rights, since there would have been a lot more conflict between them if they had a respectable amount of sovereignty.
Well 50 states all fighting for thier own interests over the same resources, yeah, that ain't too hard to see what would happennukchebi0 wrote:
We tried the "too much state's rights" thing, and it didn't work. Its a good thing, though, that they don't have more rights, since there would have been a lot more conflict between them if they had a respectable amount of sovereignty.
I actually agree with you on this too.lowing wrote:
I agree, we are just slipping off of the balance bar toward big govt.
It's kind of out of our hands though. The powers that be have decided what they want to waste your money on, and very little other than maybe some bombings will change that.
But you know... even if we did overthrow the government, it would probably just be replaced by an even more power-hungry group of bastards than the ones currently in power.
So in the end... the only way to really win is to become rich, form your own lobby group (or join one), and steer as much tax money as you can your way.
Solution: keep it local. It's easier to toss out a state official than some crook you never voted for in congress. That's the problem, you've got midwest congressmen deciding whats best for the southeast ..etc. The only exception being civil rights and the common defense.
Xbone Stormsurgezz