8 ms·

dramatically limit the size of government Any specifics? "Limit the size of government" is a trite platitude that anyone could agree with on some level. Shove

dramatically limit the size of government Any specifics? "Limit the size of government" is a trite platitude that anyone could agree with on some level. Shove 100 random people in a room and you have 200 conflicting ideas about the appropriate role of government.

davidw 15y ago
Maybe someone should write a bot that replays these tedious discussions, freeing up people to do more productive work. M-x libertopians-vs-lefties Or something like that.
- JumpCrisscross 15y ago
  The reason this debate rages incessantly is because government, like any institution, grows over time. It takes constant dialogue to evaluate when it has gone too far and then suddenly shrink it when that time comes. Mindless it may seem because of no resulting action 99% of the time, but the same can be said of pre-flight engine tests.
  - bh42222 15y ago
    Mindless it may seem because of no resulting action 99% of the time, but the same can be said of pre-flight engine tests. Terrible analogy. If engines were intelligent beings constantly plotting and trying to fail, no one would dare fly, no matter how many pre-flight checks there were. All large organizations, not just government, have a clear and strong tendency to grow. The sad fact is, there is no good solution. Switzerland's direct democracy might be one, however: 1. Switzerland is tiny. 2. What are the chances the US, or any other country, will radically reconfigure its constitution and system of government. A more realistic scenario is what has happened in other places. Like in the UK in the 1970s or Sweden in the early 19th century. Government grows so big and inefficient that a radical shrinking of it is forced upon everyone. It is an ugly and painful process and occasionally goes horribly wrong. But it's pretty much the only proven way governments have significantly shrunk in the real world.
    - JumpCrisscross 15y ago
      If engines were intelligent beings constantly plotting and trying to fail I am assuming this is hyperbole, but if it isn't, it should be noted that politicians aren't trying to blow up the systems they govern. No elite is. The situation where short-term interests systematically countermand long-term interests results from a mis-alignment of incentives in the system; it is nothing germane to government. All large organizations...have a tendency to grow Actually, no. They empirically tend to evaporate away. Most organisations have a desire to grow. Switzerland I'm Swiss, and yes, I agree that we have a damn good system of governance :). But it is very nuanced moderated democracy that exists in a specific environment. I am not so sure it would work in a more heterogenous society; we are having terribly xenophobic reactions to our Muslim minority.
  - knz 15y ago
    Is the issue that the government has grown, or is it how the government has grown? The demands of Government are not the same as they were in 1787. Instead of 4M people living in relative isolation we now have 310M people participating in a global economy. Personally I want a Government than provides the necessary infrastructure and regulatory environment for a modern economy....
- bh42222 15y ago
  I couple of bots, one left and one right, could cover 90% of political argument on the Internet. It will be a lot easier to pretend the bot is human if it refuses to talk on other topics. And politics on the internet is a horse beaten to a smooth pulp, so the bot could have a HUGE library to search for both question and argument. A sincere implementation could actually educate a lot of people. Not change their stance, but elevate their arguments.
- tgrass 15y ago
  Nozick vs Rawls.
- jrockway 15y ago
  M-x psychoanalyze-pinhead Yow!
tomkin 15y ago
It's about small government vs. large government when it should be about good government, regardless of size.
- vukk 15y ago
  Small government vs. large government IS about good government, because it's about if the government CAN be good. If yes, it might be small or large. If no, then it must be small.
- kbutler 15y ago
  "That government is best which governs least." -- attr. Thomas Jefferson
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - nerfhammer 15y ago
    I've never understood the citation of proverb in lieue of argument
    - rthomas6 15y ago
      It's an appeal to authority.
      - rquantz 15y ago
        And specious authority at that, see my above comment.
      - deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
    - kbutler 15y ago
      It's a concise statement of a contrasting opinion, with a citation you can follow to find more elaboration of similar thoughts. It would not have been more clear to phrase it as the following: """ > It's about small government vs. large government when it should be about good government, regardless of size But the problem is that large government, by the very fact of its scope and size, involves itself too much in the lives and business of its citizens. The proper role of government is to mediate in the conflicts that arise between the rights and desires of its citizens, striving to best protect those rights and the liberty of each individual while constraining that liberty and the pursuit of individual and collective well being as little as possible. Thus, smaller government is better government. The problems arising from expansive government powers and the desirability of strictly limiting government power are explored extensively in various writings of the founders of the American Republic. """ (and note the "attr." is "attributed to")
jmonegro 15y ago
When I think of limiting the size of government, I don't necessarily think about capsizing the physical size of it, but limit the amount of power it has via laws. It'd be ideal if a couple of laws could be passed to limit or restrict the power of the government to regulate markets, intervene in private matters other than property rights and (to an extent) citizen protection (don't let them get as big as the TSA is, for instance), etc.
- jpadkins 15y ago
  We don't need new laws, we have the Constitution. It clearly spells out exactly what powers the federal government has, and everything else is left up to the states or the people. The problem is the federal government has ignored the constitution the last 80 years. And the people/states haven't cared enough to do anything.

davidw 15y ago

Maybe someone should write a bot that replays these tedious discussions, freeing up people to do more productive work. M-x libertopians-vs-lefties Or something like that.

JumpCrisscross 15y ago
The reason this debate rages incessantly is because government, like any institution, grows over time. It takes constant dialogue to evaluate when it has gone too far and then suddenly shrink it when that time comes. Mindless it may seem because of no resulting action 99% of the time, but the same can be said of pre-flight engine tests.
- bh42222 15y ago
  Mindless it may seem because of no resulting action 99% of the time, but the same can be said of pre-flight engine tests. Terrible analogy. If engines were intelligent beings constantly plotting and trying to fail, no one would dare fly, no matter how many pre-flight checks there were. All large organizations, not just government, have a clear and strong tendency to grow. The sad fact is, there is no good solution. Switzerland's direct democracy might be one, however: 1. Switzerland is tiny. 2. What are the chances the US, or any other country, will radically reconfigure its constitution and system of government. A more realistic scenario is what has happened in other places. Like in the UK in the 1970s or Sweden in the early 19th century. Government grows so big and inefficient that a radical shrinking of it is forced upon everyone. It is an ugly and painful process and occasionally goes horribly wrong. But it's pretty much the only proven way governments have significantly shrunk in the real world.
  - JumpCrisscross 15y ago
    If engines were intelligent beings constantly plotting and trying to fail I am assuming this is hyperbole, but if it isn't, it should be noted that politicians aren't trying to blow up the systems they govern. No elite is. The situation where short-term interests systematically countermand long-term interests results from a mis-alignment of incentives in the system; it is nothing germane to government. All large organizations...have a tendency to grow Actually, no. They empirically tend to evaporate away. Most organisations have a desire to grow. Switzerland I'm Swiss, and yes, I agree that we have a damn good system of governance :). But it is very nuanced moderated democracy that exists in a specific environment. I am not so sure it would work in a more heterogenous society; we are having terribly xenophobic reactions to our Muslim minority.
- knz 15y ago
  Is the issue that the government has grown, or is it how the government has grown? The demands of Government are not the same as they were in 1787. Instead of 4M people living in relative isolation we now have 310M people participating in a global economy. Personally I want a Government than provides the necessary infrastructure and regulatory environment for a modern economy....
bh42222 15y ago
I couple of bots, one left and one right, could cover 90% of political argument on the Internet. It will be a lot easier to pretend the bot is human if it refuses to talk on other topics. And politics on the internet is a horse beaten to a smooth pulp, so the bot could have a HUGE library to search for both question and argument. A sincere implementation could actually educate a lot of people. Not change their stance, but elevate their arguments.
tgrass 15y ago
Nozick vs Rawls.
jrockway 15y ago
M-x psychoanalyze-pinhead Yow!

tomkin 15y ago

It's about small government vs. large government when it should be about good government, regardless of size.

vukk 15y ago
Small government vs. large government IS about good government, because it's about if the government CAN be good. If yes, it might be small or large. If no, then it must be small.
kbutler 15y ago
"That government is best which governs least." -- attr. Thomas Jefferson
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- nerfhammer 15y ago
  I've never understood the citation of proverb in lieue of argument
  - rthomas6 15y ago
    It's an appeal to authority.
    - rquantz 15y ago
      And specious authority at that, see my above comment.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
  - kbutler 15y ago
    It's a concise statement of a contrasting opinion, with a citation you can follow to find more elaboration of similar thoughts. It would not have been more clear to phrase it as the following: """ > It's about small government vs. large government when it should be about good government, regardless of size But the problem is that large government, by the very fact of its scope and size, involves itself too much in the lives and business of its citizens. The proper role of government is to mediate in the conflicts that arise between the rights and desires of its citizens, striving to best protect those rights and the liberty of each individual while constraining that liberty and the pursuit of individual and collective well being as little as possible. Thus, smaller government is better government. The problems arising from expansive government powers and the desirability of strictly limiting government power are explored extensively in various writings of the founders of the American Republic. """ (and note the "attr." is "attributed to")

jmonegro 15y ago

When I think of limiting the size of government, I don't necessarily think about capsizing the physical size of it, but limit the amount of power it has via laws. It'd be ideal if a couple of laws could be passed to limit or restrict the power of the government to regulate markets, intervene in private matters other than property rights and (to an extent) citizen protection (don't let them get as big as the TSA is, for instance), etc.

jpadkins 15y ago
We don't need new laws, we have the Constitution. It clearly spells out exactly what powers the federal government has, and everything else is left up to the states or the people. The problem is the federal government has ignored the constitution the last 80 years. And the people/states haven't cared enough to do anything.