The role of government

[shakesthecat]

I came across the following essay which discusses the current anti-government climate in which we live. I found it very refreshing, and thought I'd share it with all of you. I hope that it can spawn some open dialog about the role of government rather than the partisan bickering we've had here lately. Please let me know what you think of this and how it differs or agrees with your opinions on the matter.

<a href="http://student-www.uchicago.edu/~mbaldwin/gov.html">The Good, The Bad, and The Government</a>

I'll post my opinions below.

[JOhn]

KC Jones,

As I was reading this I couldn't but help think that you must be joking!

The author of that article is mostly correct and I want to say to him, "welcome to the club!"

His general premise has been the general premise of the conservative movement since Reagan ~ that's why I'm trying to figure out if you're joking?

"The time has come for Americans to accept the idea that the government must necessarily be limited in scope for the sake of freedom and for the sake of human dignity in our world."

It sounds like the viewpoint of someone that is only now coming to the realization that government ~ all government ~ is inherently evil and must always be limited and scrutinized. Again, it took you long enough, but welcome to the real view of the world. (not 'you' you Jones ~ speaking metaphorically http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/biggrin.gif)

Although I agree with much of his analysis, he gets one very basic thing wrong: The Constitution is already designed specifically to limit the roll of, and protect the citizenry from, our government.

(cont.)

<BR>

[JOhn]

(cont.)

This is why the appointment of Supreme Court Justices has become so important. For most of our history it didn't make any difference whether a judge was appointed by a Democrat or a Republican President. In either case, a good man would be appointed that took his job of strict Constitutional interpretation very seriously. Starting some fifty years ago, however, the liberal element in our culture started appointing Judges that believe in 'bending' these citizen protections. This has been the biggest threat to our freedom since the war of 1812.

We must remember, the Constitution is our ONLY protection from tyranny. When we give free license to individuals with political agendas to 'bend' it over and over again, it will eventually break.

I would gladly give up the idea of a Republican appointing the SCJs if there were some way to insure that whomever was appointed would only interpret the Constitution, not change it.

Unfortunately that can't happen, therefor it is imperative that Bush win this election. Appointment of the next 3-4 SCJs will be the most important political decision made this decade (and beyond).

Luz
Welcome to the fold…<BR>

[JOhn]

By the way, while I'm thinking about it, I would like to take the opportunity to dispell one other myth...

Conservative Republicans have been labeled 'mean', 'cold-hearted', 'uncarring', and every other bad thing you can think of because they (in many cases 'we') don't agree with a liberal proposal to give money (usually to give more money) to welfare, medicare, healthcare, school lunches, etc.

It is absolutely bogus to claim that these Conservatives don't care ~ they just don't want these things to be Federal programs. They should be State and Local issues. The writers of our Constitution clearly spelled out it's function, and they just as clearly never intended it to swell to massive proportions and consume 40-50% of everyone's earnings. State and Local governments can handle all of these issues and do it much more efficiently and for far less cost.

So if the liberals want to agree with the article in the Dirty Hippie, then they need to be willing to stand up to their liberal bretheren and say "knock it off" when they start thowing hate slogans at the Conservatives that are trying to do something about it.

Luz
i feel better getting that off of my chest...

[Shootr]

Standing and clapping for Luz. http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/smile.gif
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Helvetica, verdana, ariel">quote:</font><HR>
It is absolutely bogus to claim that these Conservatives don't care ~ they just don't want these things to be Federal programs. They should be State and Local issues. The writers of our Constitution clearly spelled out it's function, and they just as clearly never intended it to swell to massive proportions and consume 40-50% of everyone's earnings. State and Local governments can handle all of these issues and do it much more efficiently and for far less cost.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If there wasn't so much taken out for the state, local and federal taxes, I believe the charities and churches would be able to assist the people who need it. This is not the job of the Federal Government.

------------------
bk

[shakesthecat]

Luz,

This is one of the things I have found so frustrating. Because I seek to understand liberal ideology, in some cases agree with it, and will defend it against gross mischaracterizations (spelling?), I have been identified as a die hard liberal. That is not where I stand, but I can't help but get my feathers ruffled when people say liberal ideology is the same as a socialist ideology. Government ownership and government regulation are not the same thing by any stretch of the imagination.

I think there is plenty of room to debate what falls under the following category:

People who live in communities have a vested interest in sharing some resources. We need, as human beings, to be able to pool our efforts and create and to protect and create public spaces and resources for all people, for humanitarian and utilitarian reasons. Good examples of such interests include the creation of common public utilities like sewers, waste-disposal and transportation and the care of neglected children. Governments can facilitate the pooling of these resources in a manner fair and even to all who benefit from it.

I would probably support more liberal use of public resources for things like public education, protecting the evironment, and ensuring safe working conditions. You would probably not do so (assuming I read you correctly as a nearly libertarian conservative).

[DoktorSmith]

I agree with everything in that article. It was very well stated, clear and direct.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Helvetica, verdana, ariel">quote:</font><HR> I would probably support more liberal use of public resources for things like public education, protecting the environment, and ensuring safe working conditions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Me too, KC Jones. But local and state government MUST control these functions.

The most important thing is that control must revert back to LOCAL units of government. These units are more responsible to the people, more in touch with the mood of the people and more aware of the specific problems in a smaller area. As the article pointed out, the larger the unit, the more "sledgehammer" the "solution."

The purpose of the Federal government is clearly spelled out in the Constitution. The problem is that the bloated Federal government has grabbed power that belongs to the individual states and mismanaged nearly every program it gets hold of.

xoxo~
gaz
prefers his governmental units to be very, very tiny.<BR>

[JOhn]

KC Jones,

I can appreciate your frustration. The problem with ideology is that not everyone is always on the same page. For example, it is my belief that many of the leaders of the current Liberal movement in the US (and Europe) has Socialist agendas. I know we probably disagree on this, and it may not apply to you, but I do believe it is accurate concerning the leadership.

"I would probably support more liberal use of public resources for things like public education, protecting the evironment, and ensuring safe working conditions. You would probably not do so (assuming I read you correctly as a nearly libertarian conservative)."

I would actually welcome a discussion in all these areas. I just have no desire to make most of them Federal issues. Let's talk about prioritizing these issues along with other local issues.

Luz
so vote republican http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/biggrin.gif...




[This message has been edited by Luzap (edited 11-02-2000).]

[Shootr]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Helvetica, verdana, ariel">quote:</font><HR>
I would probably support more liberal use of public resources for things like public education, protecting the evironment, and ensuring safe working conditions.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Public Education:

I think there is something fundementally wrong when there is more money spent on the administration aspect of a school district than educational supplies. We live in a schood district that spends upwards of $5000 per student and we still have to pay around $200 for school fees. You can't tell me there isn't wasted money that could be spent on something more fruitful for the education process. There needs to be a different process of holding schools accountable for what they produce. Tenure is a bad thing. The National Education Assoc. would not let you touch this one.

Protecting the Environment:

I think there needs to be a committment made on both sides. The EPA shouldn't have as much control as they do, just like the IRS. Species have become extinct that haven't been discovered, I don't have the actual proof of this taking place, it is a part of nature.

Workplace Safety:
Isn't it amazing that this was the one of the first things championed by unions, and what have the unions become. I think the state government should have most of the say in this matter.

In my opinion, the 10th Admendment to the Constitution is the most stepped on and probably one of the most important Admendments to the Constitution.

Here is a link to the constitution of the US:
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html



------------------
bk

[shakesthecat]

I haven't completely made up my mind regarding states rights.

As I understand it, our 'nation' was founded as the loosest possible confederation of states, to our founders they were more or less separate nations. Eventually a war was waged over the role of federal vs. state government and the federal side won. I am strongly opposed to any state law or practice that would infringe on an idividuals rights, and think the federal government is the perfect place to protect those rights. That was the cornerstone of the liberal movement known as the civil rights movement. It was high time to strike down local Jim Crow. However, I am very much open to shrinking the role of the federal government, but not to the extent as it existed in our founders time.

[Shootr]

Kc Jones,

I don't think the founding fathers could have even come close to envisioning what or how great our country is or could become.

They were highly visionary in thier thinking to come up with such a evolving form of government. My hats off to them.



------------------
bk

[Chief_Noraa]

Good article! I believe that the Government is inherently incompetent therefore: the less they are involved with the better. Naturally there are some areas that can’t be handled by the private sector like national defense. Our founding fathers were not believers in big government. They were wise enough to realize the necessity of the separation of Church and State. Not to protect the State from the Church but quite the opposite. No direct Taxes were to be allowed (see income tax). It took a Constitutional amendment to get that deep into our pockets. The Government is supposed to be a servant to the people not a shepherd to a flock of sheep. Our country was founded on freedom of choice. We have strayed from this path to a Government that thinks it knows best for us and shows no hesitation in passing legislation for “our own good”. We have Liberal campaign ads lamenting a candidate for supporting “THE BIG DRUG COMPANIES getting to set their own price for the sale of THEIR product”. Last I heard that was referred to free enterprise. Cont...<BR>

[Chief_Noraa]

We have the GET THE GOVERNMENT OFF YOUR BACK conservatives giddy as schoolgirls to lock up people of using drugs. “Its not good for them, its not moral so lets take that tax paying citizen and lock him up! It’s for his own good you know. We as a nation are very poor at separating our own personal interests and morals from what we tolerate the government doing. We rationalize that well “ If it saves just one life it is worth it.” Well in that case we need to out-law boxing and High School football. Lets go sue the tobacco industry because smoking is bad for you. Of course smoking is bad for you you’re lighting something on fire and sucking the smoke into your body for Gods sake. The problem with this type of mentality is that it paves the way for the continued incremental erosion of our personal rights. It is so easy to extrapolate these seemingly well meaning laws into areas that seem ridiculous now….


Rod
On his soapbox today

[Quarterback]

Jefferson put it best:

The governemnt that governs best is one that governs least

We as a people and country would be much better served if the 10th amendment were strictly observed and te dozen or so things spelled out in the Constitution as duties of the federal goverment were followed.

[redshirt32]

The role of gov't is to help the Chiefs beat the Raiders arses!!!!!!! http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/wink.gif