As I watch, I think of the cost and cringe.
I find the initial approach more impressive;
https://www.mukogawa-u.ac.jp/~iasu2012/pdf/iaSU2012_Proceedings_403.pdf
As I watch, I think of the cost and cringe.
Thanks for the explanations. Informative...you lost me at why not a king. But I am going to put that in the noddle and toss it around a bit...I do agree there are a lot of absolutes, and there should never be. Not sure what’s what’s wrong with gun rights and small government. If I remember correctly they used to work for like six months then go back home to their real jobs...hhmmm a lot of meat to digest here....loading screen....loading screen....Hey, Lester!
Right up top, I put “patriot” in quotes because it no longer signifies what it once did. It has been hijacked by a stream of “conservative” thought which brands itself and its ‘policies’ as patriotic in opposition to other points of view, which they brand as “unpatriotic”.
They wrap it up in the old language of honor, pride, freedom, but it amounts to little more than absolute opposition to abortion, absolute support and expansion of gun rights, a simple idea of ‘smaller government’, and “that old-time religion”. There’s a bunch of feeder-fish issues stringing along, but that’s the spine of it.
I put “conservative” in quotes because they’re bomb-throwing radicals, they ain’t conserving anything.
I put “policies” and “smaller government” in single quotes to indicate that these are more inchoate notions than well-defined or understood.
Hope that’s not TMI...
Federal or state, the question is the same. For what it’s worth, I don’t see the federal government taking all the power the way some people do, but that’s probably obvious.
Bet you didn’t expect all that - neither did I!
... Not sure what’s what’s wrong with gun rights and small government. ...
you already have a large powerful central governmentSo we should not strive to decrease the size of the government? there are many many “ departments and agencies” that can be eliminated. Rather we should have a large powerful central government?The deficit is “beginning” to rise Ha! Have you not been paying attention for the past several decades?
Limited government has been a debate for many many years, and not just in the U.S, so I think it’s more of a people thing not a new conservative mantra.
it did that, along with oppressing its poor populationEngland ruled half the world with 7000 public servants,
why would we need anymore than that?
you already have a large powerful central government
question is 'is that the best government?'
smaller could be a fine thing, if there was any real world evidence it was beneficial
there seems to be a lot of acceptance from some circles that small government is good
but real world evidence is lacking, and in fact is countered by the experience with weak(small) governments
i.e. all the immigrants coming in our southern border, they're coming from small weak governments
in practice people hate small government, at least many seem to
get back to the deficit later, that's plenty for a post
Well, *private* government, don’t you know...kings, dukes, lords of the manor....England ruled half the world with 7000 public servants,
why would we need anymore than that?
Well, *private* government, don’t you know...kings, dukes, lords of the manor....
We didn’t *like* private government, not really much way to avoid being robbed, raped, and/or ruined by the ruling class.
I see you’re not including the people shanghaied onto Navy ships, nor the boys in the red coats who “took the King’s shilling”, pretty sure there were more than 7000 of them. A real “ownership society”...if you were an aristocrat. Not so sweet if your (great) grandparents were transported to Oz.
I disagree. Limited government is not at all a bad idea, I honestly never remember anyone trying to sell the idea of big government: Occam’s razor is in fact a thing: do not multiply entities needlessly applies as much to government as any other process.So we should not strive to decrease the size of the government?
There are ways and there are ways...giving huge tax gifts to the very wealthiest, then closing down parts of the government that those wealthy didn’t like, because “no money”, is just a straight-ahead cheat on a bed of lies, with bullshit sauce.
there are many many “ departments and agencies” that can be eliminated.
Name 3 and explain WHY they can be eliminated? I mean, it’s easy enough to *say* that...
Rather we should have a large powerful central government?The deficit is “beginning” to rise Ha! Have you not been paying attention for the past several decades?
We have a large central government, alright, but it’s not that powerful, mostly because we’ve been allowing the ‘right’ to terraform it into a minority-rule state for the service of a minority - the wealthiest -by the suborned employees of that minority.
Say what you want against majority rule, the reverse is STILL tyranny.
This touches on the issue of why the founders didn’t want a king. There are neither checks on nor balances to a monarchy. Monarchy is so far the ultimate in private government: the rulers are few, the enablers are more, the (*ahem*) mass of the people are the vast bulk.
If you want a strong central government, there ya go. If you want a functioning society, well, then you want a different boat.
King, President, Premier, it doesn’t matter if the people being governed are being governed badly. Representation matters.
On ‘the deficit’: the deficit is a shell game, played by “conservatives”. The game goes like this: GOP gives tax cuts, most of it going to the 0.01%; GOP votes a big raise for the military; GOP cuts “services” in/of government, claiming not enough money. Lather/rinse/repeat until a Democratic administration takes over. GOP screams about “the deficit” which they hadn’t cared a bit about for years, screams about tax-and-spend liberals, screams about Dems giving away the store. Dems apologize for the mess, do their best to clean it up in the face of active opposition from GOP, try to straighten something else out, and see about other issues. GOP screams about “the deficit” (which they hadn’t cared a bit about for years), screams about tax-and-spend liberals, screams about Dems giving away the store, screams about socialism, lather/rinse/repeat. Dems lose White House, GOP shove another tax cut thru like before, pump up the military again, cut “services”, get thrown out of office.
Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
You may not have seen it, but there’s video of Rumsfeld in the first episode of Shrub saying in so many words, ‘Reagan showed us that deficits don’t matter’.
Limited government has been a debate for many many years, and not just in the U.S, so I think it’s more of a people thing not a new conservative mantra.
I disagree. Limited government is not at all a bad idea, I honestly never remember anyone trying to sell the idea of big government: Occam’s razor is in fact a thing: do not multiply entities needlessly applies as much to government as any other process.
The problem is that “limited government” is code for a captive government, a government too weak to defend itself from internal enemies. A government ripe for overthrow, a government closer to the dysfunctional Articles of Confederation than the Constitution of the United States of America.
I *DO* believe it is a conservative mantra, and I do believe they have been at it awhile.
I don’t believe THAT is what any of *US* want, I don’t believe that’s what the founders envisioned. But I could be wrong.