A government with low capacity and autonomy makes me uneasy because it is unlikely to get much done most of the time and may lack the scope of authority it needs to rigorously protect each individual from abusive firms, unions, organized religions, acts of fellow citizens, etc. A small government in that regard is one we may not be able to count on to competently execute more than its most vital of duties in service to the public. That is of great concern to me since I have rather little faith in folks in general to always do the right thing when left all to themselves; representative democracy is far more attractive to me than its direct alternative. The security you speak of takes the form of human rights upheld and individual rights that are actionable - not just potential and looking nice on a sheet of parchment. I don't much like states that are high in both capacity and autonomy, either. It is more of a matter of finding a pleasant balance for me than actually having a strong bias for either "small" or "big."
Sounds wonderful in concept. However, we have a government plenty large enough to achieve the things you've listed. The results? $16 trillion in debt. High unemployment. Jobs leaving the country. More and more people dependent on government. A completely corrupt government that spies on its citizens and uses that information to further their agendas. It appears the solution is worse than the problem, as is the case almost always with a large, central government. On the other hand, as you noted, there need to be protections for various things. After watching the decline of the US in recent decades, under all kinds and flavors of hacks in DC, it appears to me a limited federal government and a lot more state and local control would be a lesser of the evils. Of course, it should be noted that big, small, too big, too small are all very subjective terms and can drastically affect the specifics of peoples' arguments, pro or con.
People who are used to clinging to a comfortable teat will have a hard time letting go and finding their own sustenance. It's learned helplessness. Which is why small government is actually the best thing for these people. It helps them grow. Sometimes what's best for you is not what you want.
[MENTION=57589]AceFrehley[/MENTION]: Something more to bear in mind is that we can have constitutional, limited government regardless of where we choose to set those limits. The federal government has more authority than I am comfortable with in a number of different ways yet at the same time has little or no authority on a few matters that I think it should. Though I agree with your statement that, "...a limited federal government and a lot more state and local control would be a lesser of the evils," my concern is that without a new, well-written constitution the state and local governments could do every bit as much harm as the federal government. But yeah... much of this is very much subjective. :\
I believe that people who don't have a lot of faith in God to help humanity are mainly the ones who favor big govt. If that's true, then clearly it's fear which prompts a desire for big govt. Fearful people live almost exclusively in the short term future. They have no concern with history compared to this continual and present lookout for evil events which might happen to them soon.
You ASSume that the majority of government has to do with welfare. Sometimes it helps to get ALL the facts instead of repeating meaningless mantras.
This is the exact message which black, hispanics and the poor need to be taught is true. No matter how much ones thinks that blacks, Indians, Hispanics would rather draw welfare and not work, I think that one is dead wrong. I think that in his heart, every man knows and wants to support himself, as God intends. That isn't to say that someone with no arms and legs shouldn't receive welfare, though they would be happier if in addition to welfare, they were enabled to do some job which requires nothing but thinking, or reading and reporting, etc. As soon as the right learns how to teach this to these folks, the day of the Democrat will be over. And it will be time to split the RIGHT into two parts.
I think that in the end, all free societies may be "temporary". Human nature will eventually take over. I believe this precisely what we are seeing in the US. Going by history, this will not have a happy ending. That said, the alternative iron fist rule. I know that's somewhat of an oversimplification, but basically true. Sadly, it is in our nature to destroy ourselves. Now after all this whining I have done, I am still very fortunate to live here. - - - Updated - - - Huh? He said that? When and where?
Because any government has to pretend to care, so that the very nasty rich are kept in at least some sort of check in their thieving. It is like hypocricy being the tribute vice pays to virtue, since without their bullying State the capitalists would all be strung up within a week.
He is making the same stupid ASSumption that others here do, they seem to think that people want to be and are comfortable taking assistance and that they are the norm, nothing could be further from the truth, but let's igonre that and stick to script you have been taught.
Probably it scares people cause it would be corporatism would be running wild and unchecked, would be my first guess.
Mexico is just south of the border, if republicans want a 98% Christian nation, with the richest man in the world and a small government, no safety nets, no one is stopping them from going there .
