4 ms·

He didn't say nor have I ever heard a libertarian claim they wanted no government. I believe that's a different ideology.

• d23 13y ago
  > Ultra limited government. Pretty damn close.
  • robomartin 13y ago
    Nope. A rough count shows that over twenty million people work directly for our govenments from local to federal. http://www2.census.gov/govs/apes/11fedfun.pdf http://www2.census.gov/govs/apes/11fedfun.pdf http://www2.census.gov/govs/apes/11stlus.txt http://www2.census.gov/govs/apes/11stlus.txt If we reduced government by 90% by reduction, automation, privatization and outright agency elimination you'd still have two million people in government. "Ultra-limited" does not mean "no government". I think 50% to 75% could be a good range. So you'd still have somewhere between five and ten million people in government. Also, "ultra limited" refers more to what they are allowed to do rather than how many.
• VikingCoder 13y ago
  He said, "Ultra limited government." Does ultra-limited government include government-provided roads, infrastructure, safe food, safe cars, electricity, water, internet?
  • jaekwon 13y ago
    No reason it couldn't. It's not the size of a government that determines its efficacy, esp with the right kind of private-sector support.
    • VikingCoder 13y ago
      Then it's a MEANINGLESS PHRASE.
      • talmand 13y ago
        Just because you don't like it or don't agree doesn't make it meaningless. It means exactly what it says. There is nothing to show that an ultra-limited government cannot perform the needed tasks for society such as you provide. But I say there's a big difference between a government that provides what's needed for society and the monstrosity that's currently in place in Washington D.C. When I say something along the lines of ultra-limited I mean I want most of the political decisions that affect my life to be decided on the local or state level before it becomes a federal issue. That's exactly how the US was designed, but that's not the way it is being run now. The federal government actually has a list of things it is to do, by the way Post Offices and Roads are covered so I have no problem with that, but a great deal of what it does goes way beyond that list. My definition of a ultra-limited federal government? Simple. It's what the Constitution says it is.
        • VikingCoder 13y ago
          > Simple. It's what the Constitution says it is. Every single thing the government does today has been because of laws written by Congress, signed and enacted by the head of the Executive, and upheld by the Judiciary. How can you even BEGIN to make the claim that it's unconstitutional? That's the DEFINITION of Constitutional.
          • dragonwriter 13y ago
            > Every single thing the government does today has been because of laws written by Congress, signed and enacted by the head of the Executive, and upheld by the Judiciary. Incorrect. Many of things the government does today are done either within or outside of specific purported statutory authority (in the latter case, if there is a theoretical justification, it relates to inherent powers of particular offices that do not require legislation to activate) outside of the scope of theories of justification that have been challenged in the courts. Its also quite likely that at least some things government does today are things that have been rejected by the courts in the past -- and which would be again if they were challenged again (certainly, it stretches credibility to claim that, despite all the past missteps, many of which involved repeats of the same violation, the government has just recently become perfectly compliant.)
  • nitrogen 13y ago
    Maybe "ultra-" in this case was used to indicate that the limits would be strict, not that they would be extremely small.
    • VikingCoder 13y ago
      Maybe "ultra-" is a meaningless phrase that makes people feel good, but conveys zero information content, and so it's not worthy of debate.