The government and it's ever-increasing power: Can we limit it?

[ShakeZula06]

I was really close to making this a post in this thread but I'm deciding to make this a thread in politics because it's off topic and I don't want to hijack.

BigWig's beef in the linked thread (mine too) is that government is proned to oversteppping it's boundaries by legislating morality and making laws that clearly benifit only themselves or those paying them.

Online poker is yet another example of that. It makes me sick that these scumbags are looked at as the leaders of our society.

Those against legislating morallity usually fall into two camps. (1) One camp believes that we need to limit government to stay out of people's personal decisions and the other camp who believes (2) we need to get rid of government. Obviously each has it's own sub-camps, but for the purposes of this discussion at this time it isn't a big thing.

Once I came to terms with the idea that government needs to stay out of personal decisions and stop going after people who commit victimless "crimes" I (I assume most anybody) fell into camp #1 (which would be after I stopped drinking the Republican kool-aid).

However, I have moved to camp #2 with the help of the ACists on this board that I now include myself in. The biggest reason is that I believe that Government is proned to grow bigger and grow larger and larger and control anything it can. Just look at America. The founders set up a Constitutional Republic aimed at having a (relative to the individual states) weak federal government, and a weak executive branch. Well, so much for that.

So the question I pose is, is it possible for the government to actually restrict it's own power? We seen pretty clearly that in the face of a constitution limiting governments power we have still seen it steadly grow over the last ~250 years, so my answer right now is no, but I (would like to think I [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img])am not set in my way of thinking yet.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
So the question I pose is, is it possible for the government to actually restrict it's own power?

[/ QUOTE ]

In general, no. On very rare occassions it occurs. This is equivalent to asking, "Can all of the air in the room suddenly end up in the corner?" Technically, yes. Is it likely to occur any time soon? No. The chances of this occuring are inversely proportional (at best) to the size of the government in question. So as governments grow larger, the possibility continues to decline.

Notable cases in the recent past have been New Zealand, Ireland, some Eastern European former Soviet Bloc countries, like Estonia.

[Mickey Brausch]

We are too ready to damn any and all types of government in society. But clearly some types of government are doing significantly better than others, in terms of citizen satisfaction or even just plain ol' vulgar economic performance.

Take the Vikings.

Often cited by the Left or the Right as examples of "good government" or "government run wild", respectively, they manage to have, nonetheless an enviable level of citizen satisfaction and come out on top in economic competitiveness.

[ QUOTE ]
CNN Business
GENEVA, Switzerland (Reuters) -- The United States fell to sixth place in the World Economic Forum's 2006 global competitiveness rankings, ceding the top place to Switzerland, as macroeconomic concerns eroded prospects for the world's largest economy.
<font color="white"> . </font>
Switzerland was followed by Finland, Sweden, Denmark and Singapore. After the United States, which had topped the 2005 index, Japan, Germany, the Netherlands and Britain rounded out the top 10.

[/ QUOTE ]

They must be doing something right those Scandinavians, meriting at least somber examination.

Mickey Brausch

[morphball]

Well we can become AC, or an even less radical step for the statists such as myself...

TERM LIMITS!!!

[irvman21]

It's interesting though, despite being a country many point to, especially in Europe, for how things should be done, Sweden has a rather unhappy populace. Approval for the social democrats has been falling steadily, for among many other economic issues, its handling of immigration.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
Well we can become AC, or an even less radical step for the statists such as myself...

TERM LIMITS!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

It's obvious you don't understand the problem.

Special interest groups don't have term limits on how many people they can pay off. Also it's very hard to get a republican or democrat nomination without satifying a litmus test of what you do and don't support. So we end up with different politicians, but they are all have the same agenda more or less as the guy before them, save a few issues.

[Vagos]

[ QUOTE ]
Once I came to terms with the idea that government needs to stay out of personal decisions and stop going after people who commit victimless "crimes" I (I assume most anybody) fell into camp #1 (which would be after I stopped drinking the Republican kool-aid).

However, I have moved to camp #2 with the help of the ACists on this board that I now include myself in. The biggest reason is that I believe that Government is proned to grow bigger and grow larger and larger and control anything it can. Just look at America. The founders set up a Constitutional Republic aimed at having a (relative to the individual states) weak federal government, and a weak executive branch. Well, so much for that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great post, I feel this describes my basic feelings over the last few years as well. I grew up in a family that was VERY big with politics, especially my dad, who(along with some general feelings I had) had me also drinking the Republican Kool-Aid for many of my high school years. My brother is on the left, along with my mother. My sister is somewhat moderate. Lately, as I've gone over to the Libertarian way of thinking, I can't help but think my whole family thinks I'm losing my mind. But I have never felt more sane about the way I see the world politically.

For some reason, I think we(be it Libertarian-ACist, whatever) are seen by a lot of people as being selfish or greedy? I can't stress how this couldn't be further from the truth. What's more selfish then telling people they must adhere to a set of moral codes you see fit, despite the acts being victimless crimes? And what is more greedy than politians, who only seek power and money in their own right, forcing redistribution of wealth amongst the population for whatever programs will get them re-elected or put more green in their pockets. Honestly, what's so greedy and selfish about the mantra, "I'll let you live your life and you let me live mine."

But alas, I feel the American public does not even realize just how big the government has grown. I believe if people understood what the Founders were trying to do, and how their vision has been so [censored] up beyond belief, they would realize the government is out of control. Just read the constitution, read works from all these guys. This is not what they intended for us 250 years later.

Sadly, I don't see a turnround coming anytime soon. As Borodog said, as the government gets bigger, the changes of it decreasing in size become less and less. And it's size is monstorous right now.

[steve9789]

IMO, a fearfully large percentage of people don't want the government involved in their personal life, but they want them to take care of them so they can be devoid of any responsibility to take care of themselves. They want freedom from the government, but they don't want the government to be free from the responsibility of taking care of them. Politicians thrive on power. It seems that every day of their lives is a constant quest to acquire more and more power. One of the quickest and surest ways to acquire power is to work to absolve ordinary citizens of responsibility over various aspects of their lives. For example, social programs such as free healthcare, retirement and labor wage issues to name a few. Don't misunderstand me, I agree that we need less government interference in our personal lives and that is one of my problems with the Republican party.

IMO, a good start to limit the power of government is to return the power to the citizens by enacting the Fair Tax. At this point they can no longer implement tax breaks for some by screwing some of the others. Furthermore, allow social security to become privatized and eliminate the health insurance mandates.

There are three very good examples that would start getting them out of our lives. I am sure to be criticized by some other people here that advocate such social programs. Yet they will be the same one's complaining of government interference.

Would this make them hypocrites?

[hmkpoker]

Mickey.

Learn what a sample size is.

You can't look at three countries (that happen to be highly socialized) and automatically think gee golly the welfare state must be working out for them! There are other factors in a society that influence productivity (culture, geography, resources, etc).

Also, notice that they're all behind the low-tax nation of Switzerland. Clearly, we should all start wearing Leiderhosen.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, notice that they're all behind the low-tax nation of Switzerland. Clearly, we should all start wearing Leiderhosen.

[/ QUOTE ]
And be allowed to have automatic weapons in our houses! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]