Limited Government?

Limited Government is a popular talking point for Republicans, Libertarians, and Tea Party members alike, but nobody elaborates on what type of limited government they want.

I would like to know from ATS members, what your ideal limited gov't is. Yes, we all agree that the government should be kept in line with the constitution so you don't have to say that. I get it. Others get it. So what form of government do you want?

I understand that we need some government programs like say the roads system, the federal reserve, social security etc... These are embedded into American society and to do away with those in a four year term would be disastrous to the overall economy. So what do you want in limited government?

So what form of government do you want?

I'm a Libertarian and in my opinion the best form of govt is self-government.

Laws should be beneficial. So, when a governing body is in the habit of giving laws that are not beneficial, they need to be cut down. Osha's got one where you are to use a harness and 12 ft lead rope on all scaffolding in the shipyards. Problem is that some of the scaffolding is only 8 ft high.

reply to post by Rockdisjoint


to me that makes as much sense as "limited government" you guys have to expand and elaborate! What do you mean self-government? The Government already helps itself in numerous unconventional and scandalous ways. We don't need more of that...

reply to post by CynicalDrivel


Obama thinks Obamacare is beneficial. That is a poor talking point as well. Some laws are necessary even when you don't want them.

Why do we neee the federal reserve? We did fine without it for over a hundred years. Its only useful to the banker robber barons

Originally posted by jjf3rd77

Limited Government is a popular talking point for Republicans, Libertarians, and Tea Party members alike, but nobody elaborates on what type of limited government they want.

I understand that we need some government programs like say the roads system, the federal reserve, social security etc... These are embedded into American society and to do away with those in a four year term would be disastrous to the overall economy. So what do you want in limited government?

Wait. I thought you were Republican, I didn't realize Socialist.

I am socialist enough I appreciate our highways system, paid for with a gasoline tax perhaps. Social Security could start an "opt-out" option right away while those who have paid in their entire working life could still draw their share. The Federal Reserve is up for renewal in 2013. You are another vote for Save The Fed??

Limited government does not infringe on a person's self-ownership and grants him privacy within his own home, at the very least.

reply to post by phroziac


to do away with it in a four year term would cripple the US economy and every business that works with the fed banks included. This is not about the fed tho. This is about what type of limited government do you want.

Originally posted by Erongaricuaro


1. Wait. I thought you were Republican, I didn't realize Socialist.

2. Social Security could start an "opt-out" option right away while those who have paid in their entire working life could still draw their share.

3. The Federal Reserve is up for renewal in 2013. You are another vote for Save The Fed??

4. Limited government does not infringe on a person's self-ownership and grants him privacy within his own home, at the very least.

1. Don't you think Republicans and Socialists are the same thing anyway... I don't have time to explain the difference to you.

2. There are members of congress and someone running for President right now working on that very option for Social Security! \

3. No it's not. Stop making crap up that you don't understand.

4. What does that mean? Name me a time when you yourself have been personally infringed upon by the government?

reply to post by jjf3rd77


NOT about opinions, but provably dumb.
Since his promise was to provide free healthcare, and the crap isn't free (someone IS picking up the tab for it, and you get fined for not having insurance), it's not beneficial. Provably dumb, that.

reply to post by jjf3rd77


Oh, sorry.

Well when I say "self-government", I mean no government, anarchy............. you know?

For starters we can simply go one legislative year without passing any laws.

40,000 laws were passed in 2011. Why? Did we not survive 2010? Would 2012 not finish out without those 40,000 laws from 2011?

Just go one year without passing any laws and see the sky not fall.

Then we can start cutting the fat.

reply to post by Rockdisjoint


well now you can see why I was confused right? Self-government insists (without knowing what's going on inside your head) that there is some form of government out there! Anarchy is no government whatsoever!

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
For starters we can simply go one legislative year without passing any laws.

Not passing laws is stupid if we need some of the laws passed and/or changed. Changing laws still requires a method of passing the redefined law.

Originally posted by jjf3rd77

1. Don't you think Republicans and Socialists are the same thing anyway...

I don't have time to explain the difference to you.

2. There are members of congress and someone running for President right now working on that very option for Social Security!

\

3. No it's not. Stop making crap up that you don't understand.

4. What does that mean? Name me a time when you yourself have been personally infringed upon by the government?

3. - There is much conflicting and occluded information (naturally) about this to cover here. Just jump on with "Audit the Fed" for now. Who owns the Fed? US taxpayers?

4. - I live in Mexico for a long time now - I no longer suffer those infringements. One example is the the infringement I experienced nearly every time I went to buy medicines, when I lived in the US.

That's an easy one.

Step one: Read the Constitution.

Step two: If it's not enumerated, get rid of it because it belongs to the States and the People.

Originally posted by jjf3rd77

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
For starters we can simply go one legislative year without passing any laws.

Not passing laws is stupid if we need some of the laws passed and/or changed. Changing laws still requires a method of passing the redefined law.

Sure. But it should be more than obvious to even the most casual observer that the bulk of laws that are being passed are not needed.

I ask for the one year test simply to illustrate this reality.

The universe will not end should one quiet year pass.

Originally posted by Erongaricuaro
1. - Just jump on with "Audit the Fed" for now.
2. - I live in Mexico for a long time now - I no longer suffer those infringements. One example is the the infringement I experienced nearly every time I went to buy medicines, when I lived in the US.

1. I'm fine with auditing the fed. Let them do it. I don't care, I also think they are not going to find anything and nobody will care, the majority of Americans will continue to live their lives without knowing anything about the Fed either way...

2. So you are upset because you had to prove who you are to buy medicine? So that the pharmacy will know why you need them and that you are not going to be selling them or giving them to someone who really doesn't need them? Your complaint against medicine is funny though, because medicine laws especially for marijuana has been the most lax in recent years. Almost non-existent in some states. Oh yes, some infringement. Well, I guess it's comforting and ironic that you now live in Mexico. Have fun with the drug cartels.

reply to post by Doc Gator


Did you not read my OP? I explicitly stated do not talk about keeping laws within the constitution. You need to go deeper in this thread for your post to mean anything.

Originally posted by jjf3rd77
reply to post by Doc Gator

 

Did you not read my OP? I explicitly stated do not talk about keeping laws within the constitution. You need to go deeper in this thread for your post to mean anything.

I did read the op. And I disagree, I don't need to go any deeper. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. That's the whole point, isn't it? We have strayed far from the original intent of the founders. We can't fix the problems that we have by "kind of" following the law. We are either a nation of laws or we are not. There is no in between.