3 ms·

> No government? Who said that? Where? We need a simple and limited government. No, no, no. Stop backpedaling. You said this before: > Ultra limited governm

by d23 13y ago

> No government? Who said that? Where? We need a simple and limited government. No, no, no. Stop backpedaling. You said this before: > Ultra limited government. That's pretty close to "no" government, so his points still stand. The problem isn't government in general, any more than it is people in general. It's things that are broken or aren't working well. It can just as easily be said about the private sector. Yesterday my UPS person claimed he tried to deliver a package but I didn't answer the door. Bullshit. I was home the entire time and he never came. Did I go on a rant about the evils of the private sector and how everything needs to be socialized? No. I recognized that for every annoying experience I have with a private corporation I have 3 other good ones that make my life better.

robomartin 13y ago
No, ultra-limited government means a government with significantly reduced power, reach and size with respect to what we have today. It does not mean "no government". Considering how massive and all encompassing our governments are now, even after severely reducing it at all levels we'd still have quite a few people running our cities, states and country. You can twist it any way you want but nobody is calling for no government, that would be insane.
- VikingCoder 13y ago
  > nobody is calling for no government http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_the_United_States
- jbooth 13y ago
  It means damn near nothing, getting to ideologically have your cake and eat it too. Reform is hard and involves details. Whining about "too much government" doesn't require any details at all. It's like Paul Ryan's budget plan that has huge line items of savings under, and I'm not making this up, "spending cuts" and "tax reform", with no further specifics. Hey, who could be against that? There's nothing negative about it, just some huge savings! You want less government? Great. Get a marker and about 5 million pages in your printer and start printing out the US budget to mark it up for your suggestions. Because there isn't a single whole department you could cut without seriously screwing up society, you have to get into the weeds. Want to cut this NSA program? Great, I agree with you. We do need the NSA around in some form with a smaller mandate, though. Want to eliminate the FCC? You probably haven't thought about why it's illegal for me to buy a 1,000MW transmitter and drown out WNBC with Rick Astley on repeat. Want to eliminate entitlements? You need a backup plan that won't have people dying in the streets, and actually spends less money. Looping in private contractors to spend more money or provide less benefits is not smaller government. All 3 of these scenarios (and I could keep going) involve smarter government. Sure, saving money means "less" in some senses but the point is being smarter, not just randomly being upset at the aggregate size of things that you support in isolation.

by d23 13y ago

robomartin 13y ago

No, ultra-limited government means a government with significantly reduced power, reach and size with respect to what we have today. It does not mean "no government". Considering how massive and all encompassing our governments are now, even after severely reducing it at all levels we'd still have quite a few people running our cities, states and country. You can twist it any way you want but nobody is calling for no government, that would be insane.

VikingCoder 13y ago
> nobody is calling for no government http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_the_United_States
jbooth 13y ago
It means damn near nothing, getting to ideologically have your cake and eat it too. Reform is hard and involves details. Whining about "too much government" doesn't require any details at all. It's like Paul Ryan's budget plan that has huge line items of savings under, and I'm not making this up, "spending cuts" and "tax reform", with no further specifics. Hey, who could be against that? There's nothing negative about it, just some huge savings! You want less government? Great. Get a marker and about 5 million pages in your printer and start printing out the US budget to mark it up for your suggestions. Because there isn't a single whole department you could cut without seriously screwing up society, you have to get into the weeds. Want to cut this NSA program? Great, I agree with you. We do need the NSA around in some form with a smaller mandate, though. Want to eliminate the FCC? You probably haven't thought about why it's illegal for me to buy a 1,000MW transmitter and drown out WNBC with Rick Astley on repeat. Want to eliminate entitlements? You need a backup plan that won't have people dying in the streets, and actually spends less money. Looping in private contractors to spend more money or provide less benefits is not smaller government. All 3 of these scenarios (and I could keep going) involve smarter government. Sure, saving money means "less" in some senses but the point is being smarter, not just randomly being upset at the aggregate size of things that you support in isolation.