Government has increased in scope as technology has progressed. If anything our technological advancement points to the need for increased government capacity, not less. In 1850 our federal budget was something like 60 million and our cabinet was a handful of departments. The size of government has grown enormously as we become more advanced as a society. China has a massive agency that deals specifically with the internet. Soon enough we'll have to follow their example.

See, nobody can defend freedom. It is a stupid and baseless idea these libertarians that pretend to be conservative like to throw around without anything to back it up.

Correlation != causation. "Government" size increased at two major points in American history. The civil war and great depression/ww2, both of which involved crises (albeit provoked ones) and this only expanded the EXECUTIVE branch, not the entire government. I'm not too worried about China, the power of the internet comes from the free exchange of information. Restricting that effectively hamstrings whatever potential it has as an evolutionary advantage.

When there is a large oppressive government people have no motivation to do anything great because anything extra a person may have earned is taken by the government.

When there is a small government and you can keep what you earn there is more motivation to go the extra mile and work harder because you benefit from it.

Innovation is not something that happens under a communist government because everyone is supposedly equal and the benefits are theoreticly spread out over the entire population. However, if I produce a product that makes millions of dollars I want to get what I have earned and if you make one you keep that money because you deserve it.

@shock trooper
or maybe its because its 1:30am

dumbass commie

Funny, I see the inventors of Soviet products names' attached to those products so they therefore get credit for them. On the contrary I see companies stealing the rights to products from true innovators (Tesla anyone?).

"Correlation != causation. "Government" size increased at two major points in American history. The civil war and great depression/ww2, both of which involved crises (albeit provoked ones) and this only expanded the EXECUTIVE branch, not the entire government."

The correlation does not = causation thing doesn't work if your argument is that government's influence is going to decrease as time progresses. That's obviously not happening. And I would say it's more than just the executive branch. Surely the role and number of cases the judiciary takes on it has expanded greatly.

We now have government agencies dealing with every aspect of family life. You can't beat up your family anymore right? That's generally considered a positive thing, although maybe some libertarians object. Government has stepped in to make sure people don't abuse their families. We have government agencies dealing with workplace safety, dealing with environmental protection, dealing with housing, dealing with new drug approval, dealing with consumer protection. None of these activities were regulated very much, if at all, a hundred or so years ago.

And yes you're right that war leads to expansions in government scope and power. The problem for you though is that scope does not recede once the crisis is over. Government creates new agencies to deal with the crisis and these agencies provide services which people want kept. For example the census was originally put into place for military purposes. Many of our social programs regarding health also had a military function originally. The OSS/CIA didn't go away just because the war ended. The DHS won't go away after terrorism has moved into the background.

@ScubaDan: You don't seem to realise the naivety in your logic. Reducing the control of a large oppressive government is a slippery slope to legalizing raw milk. If you can give me a newspaper article that says raw milk DIDN'T cause an epidemic in Europe, then maybe I'll consider believing that freedom isn't so bad.

First getting rid of death camps, NEXT SEAT BELTS!

Putin: The core of the constitution was that we could do as we wish as long as we did not infringe on the rights of others. It would be illegal for me to assault someone, family or not, because it is not within my guaranteed rights to cause injury to someone. The closest you're going to get to a libertarian advocating familial abuse is spanking, which a great deal see as ineffectual anyway. We do have government agencies dealing with certain aspects of life to ensure that rights are not interfered with, but is it within the scope of the federal government to guarantee and protect those rights or should it be relegated to a smaller governmental body or a third party commission? The current status of our government is a flawed corporatism. Corporations were allowed the power they have BECAUSE of how government chose to regulate. The banning the sale of clove cigarettes and the issues e-cigarettes are having currently are BECAUSE the government has allowed a foothold for corporations to manipulate the market outside of competition.
The judiciary itself is a reactive branch of government, it can choose to decide to take on cases but it still requires the case to be brought to them. The executive branch doesn't need that, it can order what it wants, whether it be rendition/torture, warrantless wiretapping, or unilateral "kinetic military action" against sovereign nations.

@dD_ST
People should have the right to consume what they wish, so long as it's properly labeled and they are informed of the risks involved. That's liberty. Just because you don't use an aspect of that liberty doesn't mean you have the right to disallow someone else theirs.

The vibe that I'm getting is very much a Homer Simpsonesque "The whole reason we have elected officials is so we don't HAVE to think all the time"

Again people do not see the broken logic! If you give people the liberty to sell what they want then they will also have the liberty to put any label they want on it. They won't tell the truth all the time so quite clearly the public sector is better.

Also, if you want to talk about government oppression, start your own thread. This thread is about people trying to produce a better society by diminishing governmental control in exchange for increased libertarian imposition of civil freedoms on the government

States and smaller "commissions" have not expressed a willingness to regulate this kind of thing, so that's why the federal government has had to step up. We all saw what happened in the South for 100+ years when left to their own devices to regulate race issues, voting, etc.

But anyway what the issue is is not what should happen but what will happen. You can complain about 'corporatism' or whatever libertarian catch-phrase you want, but the fact is government is not getting smaller anytime soon because problems are becoming more complex and require regulation.

dD_ST: False conclusion. Consumers have multiple routes of recourse, they can sue the firm that sold faulty product, they can use their freedom of speech, press and peaceful assembly to stage boycotts and inform other consumers, the consumer holds all the power, even in an industry dominated by a monopoly, legal or not.
Putin: Corporatism IS our current economic system. States and third party commissions don't express a willingness BECAUSE the federal government has taken authority over the issue and will continue to maintain hold of that authority as long as they want. Federal authority supersedes municipal authority and individual will even though the latter two are much more efficient governing bodies.

"False conclusion. Consumers have multiple routes of recourse, they can sue the firm that sold faulty product, they can use their freedom of speech, press and peaceful assembly to stage boycotts and inform other consumers, the consumer holds all the power, even in an industry dominated by a monopoly, legal or not."

How can you sue if there is no government? How can you find them if there are a large number of businesses that change their name frequently or spring up, exploit and disappear. See, you don't think anything you say through. If we had freedom, you couldn't do ANYTHING against a large corporation with enough security, or a small business that can never be found. Freedom is silly, and is nothing compared to government control.

Libertarians support a government, the constitution is a libertarian document that CLEARLY establishes a government. You're under some spectrum-disorder assumption that if we don't follow your ideology with the state controlling the factors of production that we're going to slip right into pre-industrialization era business tactics.
Say you have it your way, how would you deal with dissenting opinions of your type of government? Be as detailed as possible.

This topic isn't about how I would deal with dissent. This topic is about how government control is better than people diminishing governmental control in exchange for increased libertarian imposition of civil freedoms on the government.

But libertarians also support having 0% tax, so how can a government operate when no money is being added? It is complete logical fallacy at best. These idiots don't seem to realise how the real world works. They are too busy living in their fantasy land where freedom actually helps society.

Well... interesting. I think you mean "anarchists," dD. I know most libertarians want 0% income tax, and would prefer that a given government raise its revenues through sales taxes. But again, short of completely anarchic libertarians who deserve to be called something separate, I don't know where you got the idea that libertarians demand 0% taxes. And I hardly see what's so logically fallacious about that.

"Can anyone defend freedom?"

Visit your nearest US military base. Those guys in there are Guardians of this mythical artifact called Freedom. They do their job splendidly. But once the last base closes due to budgetary constraints, Freedom will be completely undefended and the New Dark Ages will come.

"First getting rid of death camps, NEXT SEAT BELTS!

http://avenuecanyons.cementhorizon.com/img/talkto.jpg

Anyway, good job in attracting the usual suspects, DD, but it's time to move on to the next prank.

No. Libertarians support minimal taxes with tariffs making up the rest of the budget to provide a government that does little. Private firms, state and local governments should be doing things that the federal government now does. They are at a size where they can produce the most good at minimal cost. Federal programs typically run at a diseconomy of scale coupled with the massive amounts of political inertia required to affect change on a national level.
The humor's not lost on me how you're quick to say "LOGICAL FALLACY" and then call people who disagree with you naive idiots. Debate involves the exchange of ideas and how your own personal views compare to another person's reasoning. At least Putin is going to leave me considering some points he made and trying to reconcile my worldview with valid argument. You appear to be arguing for the sake of bashing people that disagree with you rather than actually listening and responding in kind. I really see no reason in continuing arguing with you since I'm not getting anything out of this and you're obviously refusing to consider anything other than your own viewpoint that you hold out of a raging necessity than reasoned thought.

I don't understand why libertarians support a sales tax and removing income tax. Sales taxes almost always (I can't think of any that don't) take more from the poor than from the rich proportionally. Unless of course this is just usual libertarian hypocrisy.

"or maybe its because its 1:30am

dumbass commie"

What does the time of day have to do with anything? It seems so silly to just say something of no relevance then follow it up with some very unnecessary ad hominum that just makes you look like a fool that doesn't know how to present arguments.

"The vibe that I'm getting is very much a Homer Simpsonesque"

You can always count on a supporter of something as stupid as freedom to attempt to use a cartoon TV show as evidence in a debate. I question your level of intelligence.

I would say...

No.

State of Nature theory a la Hobbes is and always will by position here...

People are desire-pursuing machines that need regulation and order by those most suited to the task and elected to serve the greater body; the greater that body of people, the greater the needs, and so the more demand and strain there is on the governing body and, as such, the more need there is for it to grow in size and strength alike.

Rule by the common man in a libertarian system will naturally produce inequality and in-fighting, as all men are NOT created equally, and so when Joseph James Williamson III and his people are sitting pretty and Joey Jim Billy Bob Jr.'s people aren't, Billy Bob is going to see an over-simplified and rather violent solution to his people's problems, and so, with no greater government to step in and help Billy Bob and protect Williamson III, there will be greater trouble, less production, and tremendous squalor and loss.


Government is, admittedly, something of an evil.
But given that the common man's a fool, it's a necessary evil.
And the more foolish and greater amount of common men there are, the greater the need for that evil.

Or...well, you know...we could always increase education to decrease the number of commeon men...but NAH! that'd NEVER work, right? ;)

"Unless of course this is just usual libertarian hypocrisy."

That's their goal, to tax the poor to feed the rich.

Libertarianism would work great if everyone started off equally. In the real world, however, some parents have more money than others. Some people get the benefit of better education depending on where they live. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Responding to the OP question directly: People can produce the more good for *themselves* with more freedom.

Only fools think that equality of circumstance can be legislated, but of course the world is full of fools.
The idiotic idea that the government can intervene based on the assumption that everyone should have the same starting point completely ignores the reality of immigrants entering the United States with nothing.
Immigrants show up in the United States in abject poverty and enjoy more success in their lives than Americans born with a silver spoon in their mouths.
President Obama grew up in a one parent family for goodness sake.
Freedom is the answer, not some ignorant legislative attempt to redistribute wealth through an autocratic, dictatorial government whose premise for action is that everyone must have the same starting point in life.
How defenselessly absurd.
Those fools ignore the failure of utopian communities that went down the dead end road of legislating equality in their societies. Brook Farm, Onieda, etc. etc. etc.
The bullshit excuses are endless- "your parents have more money than me" or "your parents were smarter than mine" or "your parents loved you more than mine did."
Just endless, empty philosophical excuses that ignore the truth, individual freedom is the great equalizer.

The only thing legislation can do is to enforce equality of opportunity.
This isn't a problem in the United States.
An entire legal industry pursues discrimination suits of one kind or another.
Woe be it to the corporation or individual that discriminates.
Wal-Mart just spent a fortune defending itself against a class action discrimination lawsuit and still Wal-Mart just face an endless string of individual discrimination case from female employees.
Bravo to discrimination cases in the courts.

A society that values equality over freedom will have little of either, but a society that values freedom over equality will have a great measure of both.

We can't legislate the same starting point for everyone in the United States, but we can legislate that we all run the race under the same rules.

The idiotic idea that the government can intervene based on the assumption that everyone should have the same starting point completely ignores the reality of immigrants entering the United States with nothing.

Well as far as freedom, yes there are people who defend freedom. Namely the governments in Scandinavia, and Switzerland, as well as other western European governments. They are rather liberal and protect individual freedom rather well, while also protecting economic freedom. Obviously the Socialist/ Labour ideologies are not the ideal. One can envision a world where there are no countries, no borders, no wars, a world where corporations help people unselfishly, nourishing not exploiting. A world where people only stand to gain from making another individuals life better, and only stand to lose when they put someones life in jeopardy. A world where religious fundamentalism and far right extremism are stories of the past. A world where people understand that there is only the time we have on this beautiful earth, where they understand is no salvation after martyrdom. Where they value life, peace, love, and this planet above all. But until this world is our world we have only to strive for a time when it can be realized, he have only to work towards such wondrous goals. We have to bear the brunt of certain hardships, make sacrifices for the future. To think that we do not need governments, is not to have to much faith in humanity, but is to be ignorant of greater evils.

Defending freedom is like defending oxygen.

Governments defend freedom? What an utterly ridiculous statement.
Governments never defend freedom.
Individuals sacrifice and defend freedom.
Who in the world said we didn't need government.
No one.

I guess when you can't refute what you disagree with it becomes necessary to construct a straw man to attack.

We need government to take care of our health care. How ludicrous.
We need a vibrant free market that provides productive jobs and competitive affordable health care of the highest quality not health care that is nothing but a career path for gross bureaucracies.
We need government to pay for our retirment? Again how ludicrous.
We need a vibrant economy that provides career paths where hard working individuals can afford their own retirement.
I love the way cowards hide behind "the earth" as if their idea of stewardship is above question and they hijack the environment and bend it to their own demented purposes.

We need the highest degree of individual freedom possible, and we need the least intrusive government compatible with the maximum individual. freedom.

The goals that an individual works towards are their own, not those imposed on them by anyone or anything else.

Only cowards call on others to suffer hardships and make sacrifices.
True individuals simply put forth their beliefs with confidence and embrace anyone who shares those beliefs and never think twice about compelling them.