Quote :

"To be more clear, I meant that the proper use of force is to prevent others from using force upon you..."

Haha, alright, but I'd say you should work on being clearer from the start. I doubt I'm the only one who doesn't automatically equate "right to life" with "right to not have people use force upon you, except, I mean, the government in certain circumstances like national defense and public works."

Quote :

"We want to be left alone."

This is true. I happen to be one of the people that believe we can reduce government interference (at least on the national level) while still providing certain programs I have mentioned here and elsewhere.

Quote :

"Everytime we are told by politicians that the era of big gov't is over, the gov't grows even bigger."

True enough, I suppose, but this has been going on since the founding of the republic. Jefferson said he was all about small federal government, and from that we got the Louisiana Purchase and the Barbary War, among other expansions of federal power.

My point, of course, being that we haven't done too shabby despite expansion of government. That isn't to say that there aren't limits on how far it should go, merely that expansion is not evil in and of itself.

Quote :

"until we wake up one day to find we are no longer free to live our lives as sovereign individuals."

When that happens we pick up guns. I've accepted this as an inevitability, and so should you. Hell, even that collosal douchebag, Jefferson, pointed out that the tree of liberty occasionally needs watering...

Quote :

"eliminate agricultural price-supports, save $200 billion"

Agreed. If doing so causes some massive agricultural collapse, however, I wouldn't hesitate for a second to completely nationalize agriculture. Sure, that wouldn't be terribly efficient, but it'd be a massive improvement over the current clusterfuck.

Quote :

"Do you want the government to stop building "bridges to nowhere" and 11 museums in Alaska?"

Yes, but I don't see how the solution to this is "smaller government." The solution is better accountability for our representives, quite possibly through media, a free-market institution that has failed to keep people reliably informed and righteously outraged about such issues.

Quote :

"Do you want the government to stop giving billions of dollars to the wealthy in the form of "corporate welfare"?"

Again, yes, but again I don't see how "smaller government" helps here. The reason that the wealthy have such sway in this country is because of the absence of sufficient regulation. Say what you will about such things as campaign finance reform, but it is, at least, one more chain thrown around the raging beast that is the upper class.

ps, since LoneSnark mentioned it, if you can guess which of m posts in this thread were made under the influence, you get respect. hint: all of them.

[Edited on February 10, 2006 at 2:30 AM. Reason : ]

2/10/2006 2:28:13 AM

the Barbary Wars was to protect american merchant marines against the barbary pirates. The United States under Jefferson didn't want to play the game the European nations were playing by paying bribes and ransoms to the Sultante. Instead we said we would not stand by and allow pirates to take Americans hostage and threaten american trade. There was no expansion of power there. Seeing as everything he did was allowed to him by the Constitution.

2/10/2006 3:11:40 AM

Quote :

"There was no expansion of power there. "

He sent US military forces into a substantial conflict against a foreign enemy without a declaration of war. Fighting them on the high seas to protect our ships would be one thing. Conquering Tripoli would be quite another. Sure as shit strikes me as an expansion of presidential power.

Other than that, thanks for the history lesson

2/10/2006 3:29:50 AM

The constitution provides the president with the necessary authority to defend american shipping

2/10/2006 3:37:56 AM

Quote :

"we haven't done too shabby despite expansion of government."

Hey I know better than to tangle philisophically with a drunk Grumpy..so nighty night.

2/10/2006 3:40:45 AM

Quote :

"Fighting them on the high seas to protect our ships would be one thing. Conquering Tripoli would be quite another."

2/10/2006 3:41:15 AM

we just burned the fucker and that was the only way to get concessions.

plus the congress didn't have to fund the war. we looting like hell to fund that.

Besides, it wasn't like we have instant communication then to tell them to not take tripoli

[Edited on February 10, 2006 at 3:45 AM. Reason : .]

2/10/2006 3:43:01 AM

All of these are points worth mentioning, but it doesn't change the fact that both the wording of the Constitution and the stated positions of the Fathers don't generally support the idea of a President being able to undertake an offensive war without a Congressional declaration.

I mean, I don't have a problem with it (obviously), just like I don't have a problem with a lot of the expansions of federal power that happened in the early part of the history of the Republic. That's the whole point. Expansion of power does not always equate to a bad thing.

2/10/2006 3:53:53 AM

But the Black Helicopters and New World Order

2/10/2006 3:54:35 AM

Heh. Well, can't say I'm too big of a fan of the Old World Order, so maybe I'm willing to experiment a little bit.

I had a pretty kick-ass ride in a black helicopter once, too.

2/10/2006 3:58:35 AM

Quote :

"If doing so causes some massive agricultural collapse, however, I wouldn't hesitate for a second to completely nationalize agriculture. Sure, that wouldn't be terribly efficient, but it'd be a massive improvement over the current clusterfuck."

How do you figure? The current clusterfuck only costs us $200 billion. Nationalizing the industry could cause a famine (absurd, I realize, we could all just drive to canada to eat lunch). Besides, what in the world makes you think it could lead to an agricultural collapse? Best I can figure, only a handful of products are regulated by any regime (wheat and sugar). The rest of the food market (potatoes, beans, peas, all fruits, all vegetables, etc) were never regulated and they havn't "collapsed" yet. Not to mention the regulated industries were only regulated within the last 80 years, before that it worked fine. So what makes wheat so special? The unlimited shelf-life?

[Edited on February 10, 2006 at 11:08 AM. Reason : .,.]

2/10/2006 11:06:31 AM

Quote :

"I don't have a problem with a lot of the expansions of federal power that happened in the early part of the history of the Republic."

I'm curious, which expansions of federal power were beneficial?

2/10/2006 11:17:44 AM

^Establishing a standing army was viewed by many to be outside of the realm of what the federal government should be able to do. Telling states they couldn't enslave black people, that's another of my favorites.

Quote :

"Nationalizing the industry could cause a famine"

Evidence?

I'm aware that poor central planning is responsible for most famines. That's why we'd have to shoot for not-poor central planning. Not that I think it'll be a problem.

Quote :

"Not to mention the regulated industries were only regulated within the last 80 years, before that it worked fine."

No no no no no. I understand that a lot of stuff is doing fine without regulation. I can just see how a switch from the current system might shake things up.

2/10/2006 1:06:14 PM

Quote :

"I'm curious, which expansions of federal power were beneficial?"

FDR

Quote :

"Not to mention the regulated industries were only regulated within the last 80 years, before that it worked fine."

Most of those became regulated after we realized the importance of the federal government's involvement in the economy. Namely after the stock market crash and subsequent depression. Keynes has proven how unregulated capitalism is unable to deal with a depression on it's own and the importance of government filling in for the aggregate supply and aggregate demand that the market does not account for.

2/10/2006 1:12:33 PM

grumpy already fielded my questions since i wasnt up at 3AM on a weeknight. i never said government was efficient or spent every dollar in a useful manner, but that doesnt mean cutting it down will solve all of our problems. bridges to alaska and museums have nothing to do with defense, education, social programs, etc that i was talking about. much like the drug war, im all for reform, but not necessarily the abolishment of all we've built up.

2/10/2006 3:43:15 PM

^^ Really? And regulated capitalism would have done so much better handling a monetary collapse?

The fact is, no system can handle a monetary collapse on such a scale. It has been covered before, but the general consensus among economists appears to be the Great Depression was caused by a monetary collapse which was caused by the inept policies of the Federal Reserve. Capitalism itself suffers recessions, but it takes a Federal Reserve to turn that into a decade long depression.

Quote :

"im all for reform, but not necessarily the abolishment of all we've built up."

I forgot which one, but the Federal Office of Budgetary Management concluded that the body of regulations cost the American people a little less than the benefits accrued. As such, taking their analysis as fact, doing away with all government regulation would be slightly detrimental, all things being equal. However, that same analysis concluded that a whole host of regulations are widely profitable (costing the American people millions, but saving Billions). As such, on the whole, you are correct: There are MANY things government does that it should keep doing at all cost. However, it also means that there are MANY things government is doing that does vastly more harm than good. The strange fact is, we know which laws are which, yet congress does nothing about it. There is no rule requiring regulations be justified.

#1 For example, the EPA has found that a certain wood treatment can be carcinogenic if a large quantity is eaten. As such, it has banned it, saving on average one life every 100 years. The cost? Hundreds of millions of dollars a year.

#2 Compare this with mandatory fire-retardant fabric be used when making pajamas for toddlers: Costs tens of millions a year. Saves the lives of hundreds of children a year and prevents far more injuries.

Now, whenever I am arguing against regulation, you might just assume it is example #1 above and not #2.

[Edited on February 10, 2006 at 8:29 PM. Reason : .,.]

2/10/2006 8:16:44 PM

fair enough, im just not for the militant, "burn down the government"-type of talk that is displayed on here. when i hear shrink the govt i usually assume we mean by as much as humanly possible. guess that's bias reading though.

2/10/2006 8:56:24 PM

Quote :

"Really? And regulated capitalism would have done so much better handling a monetary collapse?"

It's not that it would, it's that it did.

Quote :

"It has been covered before, but the general consensus among economists appears to be the Great Depression was caused by a monetary collapse which was caused by the inept policies of the Federal Reserve."

That might have been what made it so severe, but the recession was what caused it. Additionally, if you say "the general consensus among economists appears to be", I will request that you provide some kind of evidence, although you would only be able to provide at best extremely weak evidence to try to prove any kind of "general consensus" among economists on most any subject.

Quote :

"Capitalism itself suffers recessions, but it takes a Federal Reserve to turn that into a decade long depression."

But having the government supplement for the aggregate suppl/demand that the market cannot reduces these depressions (as well as inflations) and prevents them from turning into depressions.

2/10/2006 9:11:05 PM

Quote :

"But having the government supplement for the aggregate suppl/demand that the market cannot reduces these depressions (as well as inflations) and prevents them from turning into depressions."

That is the job of the banking/financial system. A job it had done reasonably well until 1914, when it was set up to fail by the Federal Reserve. It was only a matter of time until a large enough recession hit to cause banks to start failing, causing the hause of cards created by the Open Market Committee to collapse.

2/11/2006 10:07:20 AM

Autonomous taxes were what fixed it, not the banking/financial system. FDR's implementation of Keynesian economics were what fixed the great depression. Changing the tax rates for individuals and businesses as well as government spending itself can adjust for aggregate demand much faster than slow changes in the money supply from the federal reserve. I don't even know how you think the banking system can manage AD. It's pretty much just the government and consumer confidence that affect it.

2/11/2006 11:37:59 AM

Quote :

"Who thinks the gov't has the right to take away your money and give it to someone else in the form of free health care, housing, and emergency assistance?"

Nearly Everyone.

/thread

2/11/2006 1:30:32 PM

that was the intial point, then it changed to "just cuz the majority wants something bad, doesnt make it right."

more accountability is the obvious, reasonable conclusion so i dont know why we bother having these threads.

2/11/2006 1:42:17 PM

Quote :

"I am perfectly willing to deprive certain individuals of certain luxuries in order to provide others with basic necessities. I could do so without even a twinge in my conscience."

Unless the individual is yourself or the others are children, your conscience is corrupt.

2/13/2006 10:26:39 PM