What is meant by being against Big Government?

I honestly wasn't good in history but I think the government probably started off small but more and more people needed the government's help so it got bigger because people wanted it. Now it seems to me people want it smaller but mostly what I hear are people wanting it to get smaller by making it stop doing things for OTHER people and not them. People who don't get welfare want to take welfare away from people who have it. People who don't work at McDonald's want to get rid of the minimum wage. In other words they want to get rid of things THEY don't need even if OTHER people need it.

I know that might sound too simple but I think that's what I seem to hear mostly.

Kal'Stang said:

This video shows perfect examples of what most people that are against Big Government are talking about when they talk about it.

Click to expand...

The corporate state cabal who tell you a democratic representative government of/by/for the people can never work would have you subjugate yourself to the aristocracy. That’s the point, the corporatists will tell you what is good for you, why, they are the “successful” people after all. Subsidize them and all will be well.

C R O I X said:

And an other thing that I think is highly probable to be true, is that the future is about automation and very few jobs remaining. While governments and society don't actually think about a way to adapt society and an economy based on automaton, we should expect governments getting increasing crazy bureaucratic, as an alternative to keep artificially creating bureaucratic jobs and taxes because their mind are still in the 20th Century.

Click to expand...

RT (Russia Today) has an episode on the Keiser Report, where Max and Stacy are in North Dakota, I think on an Indian Reservation so vast and "disconnected" that there is no interconnection on it for miles and miles. But I brought the episode up because the film riding in the back of an Uber car (cab) which is totally computer driven. The driver only is there for show--and maybe law--and (and by company regulation so far, to start the car and then to manually drive right at the end of the destination). Literally, the guy had his hands off the steering wheel and the car changed lanes, halted at red lights, sensed cars and slowed when approaching behind them.

I think Uber is running their test pilot program of this in North Dakota.

I had heard that the trucking industry was looking to--and gearing up--for this computer/satellite change but I figured it would be 50 or maybe 100 years away from now. I saw slightly stunned to be watching this unfold so soon.

Maybe the future of cabs, public bus transportation, and interstate trucking is going to be all driver-less. And that will be: WOW :shock:.

Actually, maybe the same might happen with airline flights and even military warfare in the air. I wonder if shipping through the oceans, lakes, and rivers will ever get to that?

Emily L said:

I honestly wasn't good in history but I think the government probably started off small but more and more people needed the government's help so it got bigger because people wanted it. Now it seems to me people want it smaller but mostly what I hear are people wanting it to get smaller by making it stop doing things for OTHER people and not them. People who don't get welfare want to take welfare away from people who have it. People who don't work at McDonald's want to get rid of the minimum wage. In other words they want to get rid of things THEY don't need even if OTHER people need it.

I know that might sound too simple but I think that's what I seem to hear mostly.

Click to expand...

The debate seems to have occurred pretty early in the formation of the country.

Part of "Big Government" is a professional military, as an entire career field, as opposed to the state militias which tended to have armed citizens, as in as part of the militia they kept their guns in their homes. The militias were not careers and only fully activated for lengthy duration in times of need.

Those politicians that wanted a string Federal Government pushed for the creation of a professional military and the establishment of training academy (West Point) for military officers.

So, you are right in more ways than you know. Because what is the United States Government, the US taxpayers, doing when they finance the US military to provide a large part of the protection of another country like say... South Korea? It's welfare. You could call it security welfare. And those that oppose mainland USA welfare for US citizens, promote welfare (security) for other nation's citizens.

Europe has a while ago ceded much of the responsibility of European military "security" to the United States of America. So, they reduce the size of the militaries and consequently reduce the size of their military spending ($$). They then can use more of their tax money to bolster up their nations robust mainland welfare system for their own citizens.





To understand this one must also understand there is a symbiotic relationship between US major banks, corporations, the US military, and the actual US Government/Politicians.

The fact the US dollar is so strongly tied to keeping the House of Saud in power in Saudi Arabia, keeping oil traded in US dollars so it causes a demand globally for other countries to stock pile US dollars, further promotes this symbiotic relationship.

Big government is watching 9 governemnt workers standing around watching one government worker fill in a 2' x 2' asphalt patch.

Emily L said:

I honestly wasn't good in history but I think the government probably started off small but more and more people needed the government's help so it got bigger because people wanted it. Now it seems to me people want it smaller but mostly what I hear are people wanting it to get smaller by making it stop doing things for OTHER people and not them. People who don't get welfare want to take welfare away from people who have it. People who don't work at McDonald's want to get rid of the minimum wage. In other words they want to get rid of things THEY don't need even if OTHER people need it.

I know that might sound too simple but I think that's what I seem to hear mostly.

Click to expand...

Maybe not being good in history lessons helps you have a clear view of things.

One of the most frequent problem people have is with their neighbors. And the problem is that one always want something that the other consider violating. If the government tells that people are free do listen to laud music in their propriety during the day, the neighbor who is irritated by other's freedom to listen laud music complain that the problem is the government restricting their freedom to have a quiet day while at home, and vice-versa.

What I have said in an other topic, the more individualistic people in society, the more they will talk about freedom. And one's freedom will always block other's freedom.
So in society there is no plaint freedom. Not because of Gov. but because of others around us. If people are reasonable about respecting each other space by understand you can't always do whatever you want and the way you want in society, people than can understand that we live in society not seeking freedom but safety and care.

plaint freedom you find in the wild. The more isolated and self-sustainable you are the more free you are.

FastPace said:

RT (Russia Today) has an episode on the Keiser Report, where Max and Stacy are in North Dakota, I think on an Indian Reservation so vast and "disconnected" that there is no interconnection on it for miles and miles. But I brought the episode up because the film riding in the back of an Uber car (cab) which is totally computer driven. The driver only is there for show--and maybe law--and (and by company regulation so far, to start the car and then to manually drive right at the end of the destination). Literally, the guy had his hands off the steering wheel and the car changed lanes, halted at red lights, sensed cars and slowed when approaching behind them.

I think Uber is running their test pilot program of this in North Dakota.

I had heard that the trucking industry was looking to--and gearing up--for this computer/satellite change but I figured it would be 50 or maybe 100 years away from now. I saw slightly stunned to be watching this unfold so soon.

Maybe the future of cabs, public bus transportation, and interstate trucking is going to be all driver-less. And that will be: WOW :shock:.

Actually, maybe the same might happen with airline flights and even military warfare in the air. I wonder if shipping through the oceans, lakes, and rivers will ever get to that?

Click to expand...

I think the world would be much more automated now-a-days if people, governments and old fashion corporation give up the 20th century models and embraced the tendency and demands of society and technology.

You can see that such tendency prediction are not new at all. In the 60s and 70s (actually even before) politicians and economists predicted that automation would be in a so large scale that even at that time they was thinking about experimenting the introduction of universal wage (with conservatives and liberals agreeing with that).

What is the point of create jobs if is possible to technology (instead of people) can work creating value and wealth to people (often more efficiently).

C R O I X said:

Maybe not being good in history lessons helps you have a clear view of things.

One of the most frequent problem people have is with their neighbors. And the problem is that one always want something that the other consider violating. If the government tells that people are free do listen to laud music in their propriety during the day, the neighbor who is irritated by other's freedom to listen laud music complain that the problem is the government restricting their freedom to have a quiet day while at home, and vice-versa.

What I have said in an other topic, the more individualistic people in society, the more they will talk about freedom. And one's freedom will always block other's freedom.
So in society there is no plaint freedom. Not because of Gov. but because of others around us. If people are reasonable about respecting each other space by understand you can't always do whatever you want and the way you want in society, people than can understand that we live in society not seeking freedom but safety and care.

plaint freedom you find in the wild. The more isolated and self-sustainable you are the more free you are.

Click to expand...

Good points. You hit it spot on when you said

in society there is no plaint freedom. Not because of Gov. but because of others around us. If people are reasonable about respecting each other space by understand you can't always do whatever you want and the way you want in society,

Click to expand...

The human race is not made up of considerate and responsible individuals. If it were so, we should be able to self govern, disciplining ourselves enough to not to encroach on the rights and personal space of others.
But to your point

The more isolated and self-sustainable you are the more free you are.

Click to expand...

I would like to caution. If all a large percentage of us would seek to live in the wild, living self-sustained, we'd soon lose the isolation.

I'm all in favor of government, but that is government in accordance with the founding document.

Some over the years have described the government as The Leviathan, and it's easy to understand why.

With no constitutional authority for the federal government to be involved in education, we have a cabinet level Dept of Education. With no authority for the government to tell the citizen what he may or may not ingest, we have statutes that criminalize the act of ingesting certain substances, and our legitimate prisons are full of mostly innocent citizens because of it.

With a specific granting of the War Power to Congress, we have not declared war since 1941, yet have been in a constant state of undeclared war for 16 years, and the military expense consumes a very huge part of the tax dollar, 50 years after POTUS warned us about it.

Government grows like a tumor. We need it, but active steps must be taken to restrain it. The Jury was one way to do it, but our judicial branch said 100 years ago we may not talk about the jury power in a trial of our peers.

It's a mess, and the debt may make it all irrelevant one day.

C R O I X said:

I think the world would be much more automated now-a-days if people, governments and old fashion corporation give up the 20th century models and embraced the tendency and demands of society and technology.

You can see that such tendency prediction are not new at all. In the 60s and 70s (actually even before) politicians and economists predicted that automation would be in a so large scale that even at that time they was thinking about experimenting the introduction of universal wage (with conservatives and liberals agreeing with that).

What is the point of create jobs if is possible to technology (instead of people) can work creating value and wealth to people (often more efficiently).

Click to expand...

The Democrats came to oppose Universal Basic Income--recommended by the Republican President Nixon (but it predates Americans)--because the Democrats feared a loss of power among American voters by no longer having the carrot and stick of welfare programs for single parents (usually mothers). Universal Basic Income would provide Americans with too much choice and thereby too much freedom. One objective of both political parties, actually possibly any political party on earth in any country on earth, is to get voters to think they as citizens need that party otherwise they perish. That only they can bestow some blessed fruits upon them in an otherwise fruitless world.

Neither political party is likely to support Universal Basic Income today.

America has reached its point. It is the Spanish empire, the British empire, and its dedicated to empire. It will fight to maintain the empire for its oligarch class if that means the parents and grandparents of America must sell out the futures of their children and grandchildren, if it means breaking them with massive students debts, war debts, falling wages, eroding infrastructure, over priced health care, a bloated prison system, and a more invasive policing force at the Federal, state, and local levels.


So, Joe Biden the Super-Democrat, the "All-American," goes "Republican" in his rhetoric to a liberal news source about the value of work, keeping welfare, and opposing Universal Basic Income as increased automation occurs.

Full article: https://www.thedailybeast.com/joe-biden-is-against-a-universal-basic-incomeand-hes-right

Joe Biden Is Against a Universal Basic Income—and He’s Right

You may have missed it, but the ex-veep jumped back into the game last week with a diss on UBI. He nails a simple truth: People want to work.

Click to expand...

Good cop vs bad cop acting roles. Then switch it up. And basically both that liberal news source and Joe Biden as a Democrat just switched thespian stage roles, getting real Republican in how they speak. The Republicans will switch stage acting roles to as it suits their need. Appealing to peoples emotions. And working to maintain the power of their organizations (the status quo).

I have nothing but contempt for The Republican Party and the Democratic Party.

RetiredUSN said:

Big government is watching 9 governemnt workers standing around watching one government worker fill in a 2' x 2' asphalt patch.

Click to expand...

Like men in rain gear watering a tree during a storm.

Thoreau72 said:

I'm all in favor of government, but that is government in accordance with the founding document.

Some over the years have described the government as The Leviathan, and it's easy to understand why.

With no constitutional authority for the federal government to be involved in education, we have a cabinet level Dept of Education. With no authority for the government to tell the citizen what he may or may not ingest, we have statutes that criminalize the act of ingesting certain substances, and our legitimate prisons are full of mostly innocent citizens because of it.

With a specific granting of the War Power to Congress, we have not declared war since 1941, yet have been in a constant state of undeclared war for 16 years, and the military expense consumes a very huge part of the tax dollar, 50 years after POTUS warned us about it.

Government grows like a tumor. We need it, but active steps must be taken to restrain it. The Jury was one way to do it, but our judicial branch said 100 years ago we may not talk about the jury power in a trial of our peers.

It's a mess, and the debt may make it all irrelevant one day.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty much Big Government when it comes to infrastructural development, tuition free education from primary school to doctoral degree, and public hospitals were patients don't receive bills (or at minimum small bills that won't cause financial ruin e.g., $50). The wealthy can always send pay for private school education and treatment at private hospitals if they want.

All of your "Founding Fathers" of the United States--those of them that believed in small Government--would look upon the United States with horror today, as The Leviathan as you said, and not only because the Government keeps expanding into all spheres of American's lives, but because it's military has become the evil they viewed Great Britain and all empires with "standing armies" they viewed as: evil.

Those Founding Fathers wrote into the US Constitution the individual states of the Union forming their own militias, the citizens forming the militias as part of their patriotic obligation, and the citizens having the right to bear arms to do it. Because those Founding Fathers viewed professional militaries and the tools of evil empires, tools of tyrants, and tools that could be used to say.... create military bases all across the earth (like the Brits they fought against).

You are right about Congress originally being given the authority to authorize war. And those small Government Founding Fathers like Thomas Jefferson would regard the US of today as an evil empire arbitrarily under a Presidents wave of his wand, bombing other countries half way across the earth like Syria, having military bases at US tax payers expense in South Korea, all over the world actually, and self proclaimed "World's Cop."

But I pretty much discount the US Constitution because I think it is mostly a useless document today. Nonetheless, all sides have to make appeals to it to secure whatever "rights" or whatever they want. Whether that be being truthful about the document or totally distorting it.




I'm fine with state's rights. But the Federal Government needs to protect Civil Rights and via Federal law impose that on all states in the Union. The thing is as I see it the Fed needs--"the people"--need to come to some satisfactory agreement on what those Civil Rights are and the close the damn books. Rather than every few years coming back to expand who those Civil Rights include so as a way undermining the liberty and free speech of others. Like this "non-binary" BS that no climate scientist will whine about the Feds ignoring science, even though they know a person born male, objectively male, is not "no sex or a trillion sexes," and therefore can get their birth certificate changed to non-binary. Which will impact historians and biographers a century or more from now. What the hell if Christopher Columbus was marked "non-binary" or Obama marked "non-binary sex, and no and all races simultaneously." Then how the [F!] would historians or biographers speak objectively a century from now about what sex Obama was and if he was the First Black President of the USA.

No, I don't give a rats behind how "non-binary" identifying people "feel." I don't "feel" like getting arrested if I have crack cocaine on me but neither Democrats, Republicans, or police care about my "feelings."

If you "feel" non-binary and it "bothers" you then that ought be a good damn signal to take your behind to therapy. Not to demand everyone play pretend with you like we all are 7 year-old kids.

Because were does Civil Rights end for the unholy political parties? The Americans that one day claim they are more than one species or no species or "all species," and they demand words hurt their precious feelings and demand we all grunt at them to identify them?

Deuce said:

Show your work or get points deducted

Click to expand...

I was simply providing an answer every bit as unrealistic as the question...