RoR: Forum

Excellent article, Marty!! What's sad is that nothing you wrote should come as news to any American. These concepts should be as truisms, and yet the concept of limited government is thoroughly alien -- and abhorrent, in some cases -- to many people in this country.

Defend freedom—advocate limited government. Without it, we become our ownworst enemy.

Can I have an Amen, brothers and sisters?!?!
</Benny Hinn>

Summer

(Edited by Summer Serravillo on 11/23, 3:45am)

Post 1

Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 5:49am

How about a Right on, man! instead, Summer? :)

Post 2

Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 6:24am

How about a Right on, man! instead, Summer? :)

LOL!! Nah... Too generic (and geriatric!)

;o)

SmS

Post 3

Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 7:24am

Will Fuck, yeah! do, or is that too crude?

Post 4

Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 7:27am

You claim the founders established a limited government.

You claim that "welfare has no place in a limited government." Since we currently have welfare, clearly the government the founders established wasn't so limited after all.

You claim that a limited government does not interfere with the natural rights of man.

You then claim that a limited government cannot force someone to hire you, cannot force someone to provide you with medical care, food and clothing — all things the government established by the founders does. Clearly it was not very limited.

A monopoly government cannot be limited. "Limited government" is a chimera.

Post 5

Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 7:27am

That'd work just fine, Matthew. Not something I would say, generally, but then I'm a little weird. ;o)

Summer

Post 6

Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 7:29am

Rick, the government does all these things because we the people have allowed the government to exceed its limits and usurp powers not delegated to it. Hasn't it been written that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance?

Post 7

Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 7:31am

Rick,

Since we currently have welfare, clearly the government the founders established wasn't so limited after all.
That assumes that our current gov't is true to the founders' model. It obviously isn't.

...all things the government established by the founders does.
All things done in violation of the founders' precepts for limited gov't.

Summer

Post 8

Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 5:12am

AMEN!

Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 3:17pm

Rick,

If you snip the regulation-of-interstate-commerce clause, and noncontradictorily integrate the phrase "general welfare" -- then the Declaration, Constitution, and the initial Bill of Rights, all become an airtight prescription for limitation on government. By being so true to both the letter and the spirit of these documents -- a welfare state could only be viewed as being decisively unconstitutional.

The "general welfare" mentioned is either a welfare for some people (paid for by others), some of the time (when "expedient") -- or it is, alternatively, a welfare for all people, all of the time; which actually merely mirrors another concept: Justice.

Welfare statists simply fail on the proper integration of this phrase, the problem is THAT simple (though the solution is not).

Ed

Post 10

Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 6:27pm

Right on, Ed & Matt.

The federal constitution only had a couple of major flaws and those have been exploited mainly in modern times.

Eternal vigilance and heeding Jefferson's maxim about the effect of interest on the minds of men is a good place to start for the defence of limited government.

Ross

Post 11

Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 9:01pm

A government permitted to tax 1% of income is, in principle, permitted to tax 100% of income. Compared to where we are today, King George didn't seem like such a bad guy after all. More fitting than "no taxation without representation", would have been, "let us f^@k ourselves thank you!". Well, we sure did.

Post 12

Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 9:07am

"A government permitted to tax 1% of income is, in principle, permitted to tax 100% of income"

This is exactly the sort of belief that keeps Objectivists at the periphery of any real world debate.

Post 13

Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 11:31am

Yes, fortunately the perspective is better from the periphery. :)

Post 14

Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 12:23pm

Steven,
An excellent riposte!

Post 15

Friday, November 25, 2005 - 10:19am

The founding fathers would be shocked by the huge list of social services our government provides. I just saw a TV commercial about health tips. Yup -- it was paid for by our tax dollars.

Our politicians trip over themselves trying to convince us that they voted to create jobs, help the elderly, etc.

It's all so sickening. Jefferson hit the nail on the head with his quote about the best government governing least.

Post 16

Sunday, November 27, 2005 - 4:07pm