Originally posted by Kram3r
Yeah, I agree with you. America needs more government. The Patriot Act II wasn't enough.
you have confused government size with executive and legislative power.
A smaller government wouldn't be any less likely to pass the patriot act, nor would a larger be more likely to.
The reasons for shrinking government deal with corruption, bureaucratic nonsense and efficacy.
Originally posted by inimalist
you have confused government size with executive and legislative power.
Yes, I know that, and you're correct. I worded incorrectly there.
Originally posted by inimalist
A smaller government wouldn't be any less likely to pass the patriot act, nor would a larger be more likely to.
Yes, but the powers and creation of government bureaucracy (Such as the Department of Homeland Security) that has been created should not exist. In an "ideal" limited government it would be considered bulk that's "bureaucratic nonsense" and a waste of tax payers money. Two things limited government ideally wouldn't do.
So, I suppose what I'm saying is that while yes, both a large and limited governments are vulnerable to the creation of such powers a limited government would (theoretically, in it's response to being limited) reject the notion of introducing such powers.
Originally posted by inimalist
The reasons for shrinking government deal with corruption, bureaucratic nonsense and efficacy.
As well as the moral factor that the government shouldn't be able to restrain liberties.
Originally posted by Devil KingYeah, I assume though. Though there aren't really any male, white contenders left. I am also not too knowledgable about our media. I get most my information from English publications on the Internet. But to me it seems that even in the presidential election, the coverage by the German press is extremely shallow and and on the surface at most.
so it's not too far off from how it is here in the states. (how is a democrat going to be taken seriousy if he's a male or white, in other words.)That's not what i mean. If it had grown "frighteningly", then it would not be up for debate. As in, my statement reflects the conspiracy aspect of big government.
As for the frightening thing, obviously there are people who like such an development. But there are people who wouldn't object or even welcome a 1984 style government. I think it meant to say that the government grew frighteningly to some. And I think that government spending as well as bureaucracy increased in the last ten years is not really a secret.
Originally posted by Kram3r
As well as the moral factor that the government shouldn't be able to restrain liberties.
sure they should
all laws are a restriction of personal liberty. Unless arguing for anarchy, you are in favor of some of these liberties being restricted for the overall benefit of other individuals.
****************************
As far as drug laws and the like are concerned, in Canada as well but particularly in America, it is one of the few remnants of institutionalized racism still practiced by the government. Civil liberties aside, it is irrefutable that the individuals who made drugs illegal and set that precedence were motivated by racial issues and not by anything resembling the asinine arguments made for drug prohibition today.
Originally posted by inimalist
sure they shouldall laws are a restriction of personal liberty. Unless arguing for anarchy, you are in favor of some of these liberties being restricted for the overall benefit of other individuals.
Yes, true, there are a few restrictions that I'd deem essential for a limited government to prosper that I call "necessary evils". I should have added "certain" in front of liberties.
Originally posted by inimalist
As far as drug laws and the like are concerned, in Canada as well but particularly in America, it is one of the few remnants of institutionalized racism still practiced by the government. Civil liberties aside, it is irrefutable that the individuals who made drugs illegal and set that precedence were motivated by racial issues and not by anything resembling the asinine arguments made for drug prohibition today.
I don't care how the injustice came to be, it just shouldn't be there.
Originally posted by Kram3r
Not necessarily. The US government has obviously grown in strength over it's life-span since it's creation and therefore part of the blame can be, in turn, placed there. I don't think it's true, nor fair, to blame all of it on the Bush administration. However, the Bush administration has done a lot (more so than previous administrations), in strengthening the powers of federal government. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at with your second statement as the lifespan of government doesn't dictate whether or not a government is good and whether or not the US government is "in good shape" is subjective and highly debatable.
Originally posted by King Kandy
My point is that just because within the last decade people in power have abused their power, you shouldn't be claiming that the system is itself flawed, when it has functioned for a long, long time without problems (except the civil war.)
And as I stated, it wasn't just in this administration, but previous ones too. The system is flawed. No governing system is perfect. Also, to assume that the Civil War is the only major problem the American government has had, is ridiculous.