Less Government vs. Better Government

TurtleDude said:

for years I have noted that lots of "conservative" justices do what the FDR pet monkeys did not do

respect precedent. If you actually had a background in legal scholarship, you probably would be aware of what is commonly known as "the leftward ratchet of jurisprudence"

leftwing judges ratchet case law leftward. Subsequent 'conservative' judges respect that as precedent and cement it into the jurisdictional fabric. Then along come some more left-wingers and they crank things leftward

one of the reasons why Bork scared liberals was he noted that bad precedent should be stricken even if there was years of reliance upon it

sadly "faint hearted originalists" argue that unconstitutional stuff that has been around awhile has to remain because the upheaval caused by uprooting all the FDR nonsense would be too traumatic.

Click to expand...

Instead of showing how public accommodation is wrong, by citing con argument, you instead distract with "cons are weak azz bitches who accept precedent".

Too bad, so sad.

Gimmesometruth said:

Instead of showing how public accommodation is wrong, by citing con argument, you instead distract with "cons are weak azz bitches who accept precedent".

Too bad, so sad.

Click to expand...

the commerce clause was not intended to give the federal government jurisdiction over what should be a state matter.

TurtleDude said:

the commerce clause was not intended to give the federal government jurisdiction over what should be a state matter.

Click to expand...

Wash, rinse, repeat..

Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964)


The U.S. Supreme Court held that Congress acted well within its jurisdiction of the Commerce Clause in passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, thereby upholding the act's Title II in question. While it might have been possible for Congress to pursue other methods for abolishing racial discrimination, the way in which Congress did so, according to the Court, was perfectly valid. It found no merit in the arguments pursuant to the Thirteenth Amendment, finding it difficult to conceive that such an amendment might be applicable in restraining civil rights legislation. Having observed that 75% of the Heart of Atlanta Motel's clientele came from out-of-state, and that it was strategically located near Interstates 75 and 85 as well as two major Georgia highways, the Court found that the business clearly affected interstate commerce. Accordingly, it upheld the permanent injunction issued by the district court and required the Heart of Atlanta Motel to receive business from clientele of all races.

TurtleDude said:

"the leftward ratchet of jurisprudence"

Click to expand...

Yeah, and His will be done.

>>one of the reasons why Bork scared liberals was he noted that bad precedent should be stricken even if there was years of reliance upon it

Certainly not the main reason. "Coke can" Clarence is an embarrassment, but Pork was much more dangerous. A man without any allegiance to the Constitution, imo.

TurtleDude said:

the commerce clause was not intended to give the federal government jurisdiction over what should be a state matter.

Click to expand...

I'm not a lawyer as you guys seem to be, but isn't there a Fourteenth Amendment equal protection element to this?

mmi said:

Any sensible reading of my post makes it obvious I was talking about the regulation of legal drugs. What are you smoking?

>>I love how you think that government is the reason non of those things have happened. Their should be a level regulations on business. I think you are confusing less government with no government.

I'd say I know what yer doing, as I've already indicated. You want public safety, but you don't want to admit that government plays an indispensable role in securing it. My guess is you also don't want to pay for it.

Click to expand...

LOL, Min Safety regulations is part of the General Welfare. Anything beyond that is an over stepping of Government. Paying Taxes is a necessary evil.

cpgrad08 said:

Min Safety regulations is part of the General Welfare. Anything beyond that is an over stepping of Government. Paying Taxes is a necessary evil.

Click to expand...

So you don't mind having people killed in factory fires, auto and plane crashes, unsafe X, Y, and Z, not to mention A through W?

I'll quickly admit that you want smaller government. You want an END to the less than 10% of the federal budget that goes to one form or another of (gasp, shudder) welfare. You figure it doesn't benefit you, so if low-income elderly and disabled folks and children in low-income households are seriously malnourished, live in terrible slum housing, or die prematurely from inadequate medical care, … eff it!

LOL about that.


+++++

Ah, I see. "Min safety regulations" must mean "minimum." I thought you were going for "mine."

Well, sorry you think the regs are excessive. Get the votes t' cut 'em.

Gimmesometruth said:

Wash, rinse, repeat..

Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964)


The U.S. Supreme Court held that Congress acted well within its jurisdiction of the Commerce Clause in passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, thereby upholding the act's Title II in question. While it might have been possible for Congress to pursue other methods for abolishing racial discrimination, the way in which Congress did so, according to the Court, was perfectly valid. It found no merit in the arguments pursuant to the Thirteenth Amendment, finding it difficult to conceive that such an amendment might be applicable in restraining civil rights legislation. Having observed that 75% of the Heart of Atlanta Motel's clientele came from out-of-state, and that it was strategically located near Interstates 75 and 85 as well as two major Georgia highways, the Court found that the business clearly affected interstate commerce. Accordingly, it upheld the permanent injunction issued by the district court and required the Heart of Atlanta Motel to receive business from clientele of all races.

Click to expand...

I can only conclude that you are not interested in actually understanding what I wrote. I have conceded that after the ND the CC was mutated far beyond what the intent of that clause was. You seem not to be able to fathom that fact

mmi said:

Yeah, and His will be done.

>>one of the reasons why Bork scared liberals was he noted that bad precedent should be stricken even if there was years of reliance upon it

Certainly not the main reason. "Coke can" Clarence is an embarrassment, but Pork was much more dangerous. A man without any allegiance to the Constitution, imo.



I'm not a lawyer as you guys seem to be, but isn't there a Fourteenth Amendment equal protection element to this?

Click to expand...

No allegiance to bad precedent

and no, I never assumed you were a lawyer. thanks for the honesty

TurtleDude said:

No allegiance to bad precedent

Click to expand...

I figure Pork would be completely at ease with some sort of coup. I base that on his actions as Solicitor General in the Nixon administration during the so-called Saturday Night Massacre.

>>and no, I never assumed you were a lawyer. thanks for the honesty

I didn't say anything to indicate that I thought you had. I was just being forthcoming so that my (unanswered) question about the Fourteenth Amendment could be seen in its proper context.

Imo, yer views on Supreme Court precedent and the important role it plays in establishing a stable jurisprudential environment in this country make it clear that a law degree doesn't help much when it comes to political judgement. If court precedent should be discarded, I'd say the Congress should act.

mmi said:

Ah, a division at the national border. So you support closing yer local police and fire departments.

Click to expand...

Oh...great!! Here we have another liberal who's only ability is to jump to some illogical and unsupported extremes.

Get back to me when you've shed yourself of such tendencies. We'll talk.

Morality Games said:

The absence of self-reliance isn't even a problem specific to government. How many Americans know *anything* about the accounting that goes into managing their 401k plans or their mortgages or their credit or anything? In the Old West, every man knew everything about all the wealth at his disposal, down to the last penny hidden in the floor boards. Similarly, most people were fair hunters when the need came to it, and more capable of exacting justice on those weeks where the Marshals were on rotation. Self-reliance is under attack from every aspect of our society, not just government; businesses don't want you to be self-reliant because a service you can do for yourself is one less they can provide to you. Banks need you to be non self-reliant so you won't handle your money or your investments personally.

On one level that's necessary to their competitive edge; cutting our personal management allows the American financing sector to become bigger and obtain more of a global presence. Individuals clamouring for a greater role in managing their own money (giving specific orders about where their money is used, for example) could prove . . . obstructive.

Click to expand...

The government has no responsibility to be the go-between when it comes to a person's sense of self-reliance and a business's attempts to attract sales. Unfortunately, our citizens have been conditioned by an ever-expanding, all-powerful government to believe they do. You appear to believe the government has such a responsibility...but you want to shift the blame to some business that just wants to make a buck.

Try being honest for a change, eh?

Furthermore, if there's anything the 2008 recession and China's emerging power demonstrates, its that lack of market interventionism is a huge security risk; if a core industry implodes, then our connections to other countries are weakened and replaced by rivals. Our ability to draw on revenue pay our army and debts is shaken. Domestic tensions increase and the democracy becomes dysfunctional.

Click to expand...

So...a core industry implodes because of ever-expanding and all-powerful government...and you want to use that as an excuse to expand the government even more...to give the government even more power. How typically liberal of you. :roll:

Amadeus said:

Small government in comparison to what? Large government in comparison to what? Please don't put words in my mouth. If you don't understand my posts, I'm more than happy to clarify.

Click to expand...

We're not putting words into your mouth, you're doing that quite nicely on your own. That's one of the things we've been pointing out. Your wording is implying something other than what you seem to have intended. Or else it's accurate and you don't want to admit it.

No, it means that government should be large enough to meet whatever problem society deems it should solve. As I clearly stated in my original post.

Click to expand...

Likewise we can also say that government should be small enough to not run roughshod over the freedoms and liberties of its citizens.

Amadeus said:

My post is self-explanatory. If you have a problem with it you're going to have to point it out to me.

Click to expand...

Simply because you believe them to be self-explanatory, does not make them so.

No, I don't err

Click to expand...

Oh you're perfect eh? Yeah this kind of statements loses you all kinds of credibility.

and I'm not making an assumption. If a government is not large enough to meet the size of a particular problem, then it's too small. There's no way around this without playing word games.

Click to expand...

You're whole question is a word game especially given that the concept of "better" is a subjective value, and "larger" and "smaller" are context related.

A government could have too small of a military. It could be too small to deal with natural disasters. It could be too small to maintain rule of law. It could be too small to deal with poverty.

Click to expand...

A large number of military personal does not automatically indicate a large government or even a large military. The number of disaster relief personnel does not indicate too small or too large a government. We've seen huge governments like the USSR unable to deal with poverty. Unless you are talking strictly on a number of individuals working for the government as an indicate of the "size" of government, in which case your OP is still highly misleading.

Morality Games said:

... everybody thinks until discrimination directed at them becomes a permanent part of their existence. If people won't give individuals the respect they require to be functioning and involved members of society, then respect has to be taken by force.

Click to expand...

Define respect and show how it is not a subjective value.

mmi said:

Enjoy those dangerous drugs, that tainted food, that epidemic disease, that unsafe vehicle, that meltdown at the local nuclear reactor, that local toxic waste dump, that commute into a city choked with air pollution, that airplane that crashes with you or a loved one aboard or else into yer house, etc. etc, etc.

You enjoy and would not want to live without all the benefits that "big government" provides. But yer enough of a hypocrite to pretend that you would wave them off because it would increase yer "freedom."

Click to expand...

You have a logic error here; that a person cannot be protected from others without "big government". You can have small government and still have laws that state that certain safety rules must apply especially when a lack of them would cause harm to more than just the individual(s) involved. For example, if I work on a roof without a safety harness (something I actually do often when I need to do something on my roof) then my harm is only to myself. A nuclear reactor, on the other hand, can harm those outside its boundries if not properly cared for.

mmi said:

I'd say I know what yer doing, as I've already indicated. You want public safety,

but you don't want to admit that government plays an indispensable role in securing it.

Click to expand...

My guess is you also don't want to pay for it.

Click to expand...

At what point did cpgrad08 say that?

Amadeus said:

How would society solve a problem that affects 10,000 people? Lets say a corporation accidentally pollutes the drinking water of a town.

Click to expand...

I think that would easily fall under property laws. Those are adversely affected sue the corporation for damages. Yes the courts are a government solution, but courts of law are something every non-anarchist I've ever talked to would support.

Ryan5 said:

What are these kinds of threads? I mean seriously?

The US is a massive country. It has to have a massive Govt. Get over that already. Unless you intend on shrinking the US, it has to have a massive government.

Click to expand...

Why does a large population necessitate a big government? Unless you simply mean the more people under the jurisdiction of the government the more police that need to be hired, the more courts we must establish, and such things. That is just a matter of scale, not the scope or intrusiveness of government. No one would argue against government scaling to adaquetely serve those under its jurisdiction.

Amadeus said:

Which do you feel is more important: A government that is smaller, or a government that can solve important problems more effectively?

Click to expand...

False choice. A smaller government is more effective government.

johndylan1 said:

False choice. A smaller government is more effective government.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Smaller or larger does not have a given impact upon the effectiveness of a government. The effectiveness and the size of a government are two separate things. The two hold no mutual exclusion or mutual inclusions.

Less government can be objectively measured

better cannot be

look at FDR-if you were a socialist back then who hated the constraints the founders placed upon the federal government-FDR's utter rape of the tenth amendment and his massive expansion of the Commerce Clause was GOOD government since he used those actions to "solve" problems many socialists wanted solved

to us who despise a bloated federal government, FDR's government was awful

TurtleDude said:

Less government can be objectively measured

Click to expand...

But still requires a contextual basis. After all the is a less than 1 and even a less than 0. Less government isn't necessarily better or more efficient.

Psychoclown said:

Why does a large population necessitate a big government? Unless you simply mean the more people under the jurisdiction of the government the more police that need to be hired, the more courts we must establish, and such things. That is just a matter of scale, not the scope or intrusiveness of government. No one would argue against government scaling to adaquetely serve those under its jurisdiction.

Click to expand...

Because your entire concept is inherently inaccurate in respect to government.


In a massive country government does actually have to be intrusive. It has to have extremely intrusive laws that prevent 20% of the population from becoming heroin and meth addicts whom then crash the health systems of the other 80% of the country.


Libertarianism doesn't actually add up in the end. It's a lot like Gale the meth cook in breaking bad who was a Ron Paul supporter. He ends up being shot by the very "Total Free market" elements he so believed in (a heroin addict shot him).


Apparently he never realized that in a true Libertarian society you need very high walls around your house or the addict laden mob you allowed to fester will come to your house and kill you as they do in Mexico.

Ryan5 said:

Because your entire concept is inherently inaccurate in respect to government.


In a massive country government does actually have to be intrusive. It has to have extremely intrusive laws that prevent 20% of the population from becoming heroin and meth addicts whom then crash the health systems of the other 80% of the country.


Libertarianism doesn't actually add up in the end. It's a lot like Gale the meth cook in breaking bad who was a Ron Paul supporter. He ends up being shot by the very "Total Free market" elements he so believed in (a heroin addict shot him).


Apparently he never realized that in a true Libertarian society you need very high walls around your house or the addict laden mob you allowed to fester will come to your house and kill you as they do in Mexico.

Click to expand...

Actually, you could use a read of "Calculus of Consent". You see, the trade-off is not quite that simple. A society can large and very libertarian and have a functioning state system. The trick is to make it so.

Mycroft said:

The government has no responsibility to be the go-between when it comes to a person's sense of self-reliance and a business's attempts to attract sales. Unfortunately, our citizens have been conditioned by an ever-expanding, all-powerful government to believe they do. You appear to believe the government has such a responsibility...but you want to shift the blame to some business that just wants to make a buck.

Try being honest for a change, eh?

So...a core industry implodes because of ever-expanding and all-powerful government...and you want to use that as an excuse to expand the government even more...to give the government even more power. How typically liberal of you. :roll:

Click to expand...

To tell you the true, I cannot answer the question as it is put. The government could easily be made better and smaller at the same time. As a matter of fact, made better would automatically reduce its size by shifting a few large bureaucracies do to private industry.

mmi said:

I did — police and fire. And I assume you want to eliminate the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Food and Drug Administration, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the National Transportation Safety Board, the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, etc, etc, etc.

Click to expand...

If not outright elimination, a cut to the bone yes. You're playing the "dependency" card on this because these government groups have been around a while? :lamo Try again.

I would estimate half of governmental groups, and I'm including ALL federal governmental entities, could be either outright eliminated or cut to a minimum.

Given the two simplistic choices, I'll go with less government. I can quantify that. I can't quantify better government.

Amadeus said:

Which do you feel is more important: A government that is smaller, or a government that can solve important problems more effectively?

Click to expand...

Less government is better government.

Amadeus said:

Which do you feel is more important: A government that is smaller, or a government that can solve important problems more effectively?

Click to expand...

The only better government is less government the government is incapable and unqualified to solve any problems unless through naked violent force which is necessary on rare occasions.