How Much Government Is Too Much?

[Fu_Bag]

At what point do you feel that government has become too large, too unmanagable, and unaccountable to its citizens? Is it invasion of privacy? Censorship? ID requirements? Eminent Domain abuse? Inappropriate use of taxpayer monies? Inappropriate use of its volunteer military? Inappropriate levels of control over people's daily lives?

The list could go on and on. At what point are you more accountable to government than it is to you? Is it possible to be a free, independently minded individual AND be more accountable to government than it is to you?

I guess my simple answer for now is that you cannot be a free, independently minded individual when you are more accountable to government than it is to you. Government can create this imbalance in many ways but everytime it grows stronger than its people, it removes its peoples' freedom. There are people out there who love to have someone else do all of their thinking and decision making for them along with feeding them, clothing them, housing them, and providing them with medical care. I fail to see how that is anything other than consensual slavery.

In my mind, consensual slavery will only ever lead to fascism and that's not the kind of country I'd want my grandchildren to have to survive in.

 

[zDom]

Hard to put a finger on it....

Like Thomas Jefferson said, "The government that governs the least, governs the best..."

The use of eminent domain for the purpose of giving it to private parties who will be generating more tax revenue, for a recent example, was particularly alarming.

But then again, so was the seizure of properties in the "War on Drugs."

Property rights are the very bedrock of the society our founding fathers (in the U.S.) were trying to establish.

Ever read John Locke's stuff?

 

[michaeledward]

I can't find that quote attributed to Mr. Jefferson. Here is a quote, from M. Shawn Cole's quote database, of which you may be referring.

That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves.

Which, I think, begs the question, in the era of Tom Delay and Ken Lay, if the people can discipline themselves?

 

[Fu_Bag]

Thanks for the reply, zDom.

I'll have to checkout John Locke's stuff. Thanks for the recommendation. I do wonder what the founding fathers would think about the current size of government. Jefferson seems to have been an interesting person. There was a time when at least one member of Congress knew that it was wrong to take peoples' money and spend it as if it belonged to government, not the people.

Love the Jefferson quote, BTW.

 

[zDom]

I can't find that quote attributed to Mr. Jefferson. Here is a quote, from M. Shawn Cole's quote database, of which you may be referring.

Could be.

I was thinking it was Jefferson and googled it to confirm, but my "confirmation" could have been wrong, too.

It may be one of those oft-misattributed quotes.

 

[Fu_Bag]

I can't find that quote attributed to Mr. Jefferson. Here is a quote, from M. Shawn Cole's quote database, of which you may be referring.



Which, I think, begs the question, in the era of Tom Delay and Ken Lay, if the people can discipline themselves?

One question I'd have is whether or not Tom Delay and Ken Lay see themselves as politicians, separate and above "common people", or if they see themselves as common people serving common people? It's not just Tom Delay and Ken Lay either, that question applies to all politicians. People will be more capable of self-discipline when they are taught, from a young age, that they are individuals and that their actions will either make or break them. When people aren't being influenced by organizations that believe that the development of the individual is only possible once they leave their individual identity, rights, freedoms, and responsibilities behind, people will be more capable of self-discipline.

When people put aside the victim mentality and accept full responsibility for their actions, or lack thereof, then they'll be more capable of self-discipline. It might actually be harder for criminals to become celebrities in such a society. I wouldn't have a problem with that.

 

[Marginal]

I think it depends. Some things do need fairly tight government attention. (For example, media conglomerates.) Monopolies need to be checked or else once they gain control of a market, they get to dictate terms etc. All that free trade's great as long as people are allowed to compete freely.

I think that the government should have a minimal role in other areas like dictating specific morality sets though legislation, endorsing a national religion and other nanny state nincompoopery.

 

[michaeledward]

One question I'd have is whether or not Tom Delay and Ken Lay see themselves as politicians, separate and above "common people", or if they see themselves as common people serving common people?

If you just read the quote of Mr. Jefferson, you will not see any distinction between 'politicians' and 'common' as types of people. He says the people must discipline themselves.

Mr. Delay, from the moment he was sworn into the United States House of Representatives demonstrated a tremendous amount of discipline. I think however that discipline was manifest in a way in which Mr. Jefferson would have been appauled. Mr. Delay's focus was to amass power and control over the legislative body and for dominion over the citizenry.

Mr. Lay, who by the way was not a politician, also demonstrated great discipline in acquiring power and control. He then demonstrated that once he acquired control, that he would abuse that control for personal gain. Whether through direct of indirect action, he abused his place at the head of a company for personal benefit. I am not certain Mr. Jefferson would be proud.

These, and many other examples, show that Mr. Jefferson was correct when he used the word 'govern'. A society must have rules by which all members participate, else abuses as described become too commonplace.

Perhaps you can tell us what rules you believe are appropriate for a government?

 

[Elayna]

My personal stand point on these specific issues are this..
I want voter ID cards. I dont think anyone that doesnt pay taxes or help their community should be allowed to vote. You want to reap the rewards then sow them. Help your community, dont just use it.
I dont think eminent domain should exist. It is my land, I paid for it so stay off!!!!!!. There is enough land to go around. And if not build up. LOL.
If they make laws that I have to follow then I want laws that protect me just as equally and dont throw me in jail because I beat a home invader senseless.
I say this to our government.
Honor me and I will Honor you. Fight for me and I will Fight for you. But if not...well......*the look* (lol)
And as always I believe a balance is what is needed. To much government and you get people wearing all the same color and style clothes like in some yucky confromist movie. But to little government and you get people running the streets naked like wild banshees....Not a pretty picture. Nope. LOL LOL

Anyhooo....TTYL

Elayna

 

[Fu_Bag]

Perhaps you can tell us what rules you believe are appropriate for a government?

I couldn't do it better than the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights already have. These documents can be found here:

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/

http://www.constitution.org/cons/constitu.htm

This isn't a partisan issue. Neither side of the aisle is perfect or without fault. It's baffling to me that people will excuse one party while the other is condemned for the exact same behavior (if not worse). Voters can, unfortunately, be easily manipulated. The problem lies with the politicians and those who would seek their favor (this holds true to both sides of the aisle, BTW).

Do you think it's even remotely possible that voters bickering amongst each other appear as nothing more than sheep to politicians? Why can't people step back and say "Damn. I guess both sides really are screwed up."? Does anyone here honestly believe that politicians see voters as their equals? If they won't see voters as equals, then who is it that they really represent?

When was the last time the issue of pay raises for Congress was on a voters' ballot? How about benefits packages and other compensation for Congress? Has that ever been on a voters' ballot? When voters have more control over Congress than they do over us, maybe then they'll remember that they're representatives and not royalty.

 

[michaeledward]

Well, I don't think that both sides are equally screwed up, but that is a different argument, it has nothing to do with the size of government.

As a strict constructionist, how do you deal with the changes in technology?

Thomas Jefferson did not have knowledge of the internal combustion engine; no automobiles. Had their been cars in Jefferson's day, might the Declaration of Independence be different? How so?

President Eisenhower created the Interstate Highway System. Does the highway system rightful belong to a strict constructionist government? Or was that "National Defense" highway system just a ploy to create a jobs program? Maybe the highways now should fall under the guise of 'Commerce' ... doesn't our Constitution have something to say about that?

Do we really want to do without our automobiles?

In the days of James Madison, there were approximately three million inhabitants in the 13 States. Would the Constitution be different, if it was written when there were three hundred million inhabitants in 50 states?

I do not think our Government, nor the documents you point to, were ever designed to be static - frozen in the late 18th Century. Personally, I kind of like the idea of flush toilets. I would hope that my government would be able to adapt to a simple change. But, it must be able to adapt to complex changes.

 

[Sukerkin]

As an Englishman, I have the opportunity to look at this question, as seemingly applied to the USA, from the outside. Of course, this leaves me wide open to being told to "Shut Up!" as an intefering, opinionated, outsider . Please feel free to do so if you wish (altho' clarifying any odd/wrong ideas I have will be more helpfu; ).

There are some misconceptions/misinterpretations about what the purpose of the founding documents of the republic was.

Primarily, altho' some considerable thought went into setting up a stable form of governance that, theoretically, could not get out of control, a significant focus was on ensuring that the ex-colony remained that way i.e. did not return to the bosom of the British nor be hi-jacked by the French who had worked so strongly to wrest the resource rich America's out of British hands.

That, along with the true idea that economic well being leads to many other forms of well being (social and political) meant that the governing mechanism was set up to have checks and balances in it to keep it, if not static, at least hard to change.

It's been a while since I looked at the constitutional documents in detail but I think I agree with Fu that they did a pretty good job.

That said, I do agree with Mike that a government has to have the flexibility to adapt to unforseen changes or it leaves itself open to the possibility of catastrophic collapse.

I'd like to go into more depth on this but I'm at work and have to get back to said work before my bosses glare gets much stronger :O.