People who complain about the size of government being too big

glennmagusharvey

1. How do you measure size of government anyway, and how is that indicative of...wait, what should it be indicative of again?
2. How is allegedly "bigger" government necessarily worse?
3. How would "reducing" the "size of government" (however that works) make things better?

Turtle

1. By how many agencies and programs it's running.
2. In the case of the US, it's unlawful.  It's also worse because people don't like and don't need the government running so many aspects of their lives.
3. At the very least, it would get the country back in line with the law.  It would also let people just go about their business.

Forzare

Where exactly does it say that a large government is unlawful?

-doesn't know the constitution by heart-

Turtle

If the Constitution doesn't allow for it, then the federal government is not supposed to be doing it.  If it violates rights specifically enumerated in the Constitution, then even the state governments are not supposed to be doing it, much less the federal.

Forzare

"If the Constitution doesn't allow for it, then the federal government is not supposed to be doing it."

See, that's where we disagree.  You're a strict constructonist, I'm a loose constructionist.

"If it violates rights specifically enumerated in the Constitution, then
even the state governments are not supposed to be doing it, much less
the federal."

Where does it violate a specifically enumerated right?

glennmagusharvey

By the way, the Constitution doesn't say anything about the size of government.

Anf if anything, it mandates a complicated system of government-originated checks in place to ensure the rights of various people.

Not to mention that it gives the federal government the power to regulate interstate commerce.  Which is, almost, any form of commerce that isn't incredibly local.

Turtle

See, that's where we disagree.  You're a strict constructonist, I'm a loose constructionist.
There's not really much room for disagreement, though.  Look at the tenth amendment.  If the Constitution does not give the federal government authority to do [x], then it's up to the states or the people to do [x].

Where does it violate a specifically enumerated right?
Seems to me that bigger government is going to be more intrusive by nature - I can think of one way off the top of my head - the thirteenth amendment says that slavery is illegal, which means we shouldn't be paying taxes to fund anything except the military, or we're essentially bound in involuntary servitude toward [public school students, welfare recipients, medicare beneficiaries, take your pick].

Not to mention that it gives the federal government the power to regulate interstate commerce.
The single most-abused clause in the document.  "Commerce" does not mean "business."  It means "commerce" - as in the act of moving goods from point A to point B.  Not things that directly affect commerce.  Not things that indirectly affect commerce.  The commerce itself.  And it doesn't give the federal government the authority to regulate intrastate commerce, either.

Deboss

I suppose you could say it's like a machine.  The larger and more energy it takes to run to do a job, the worse it is.

Tnu1138

it doesn't say th ey are allowed to establish new branches or lobbies or such either? it doesn't say that they are allowed to do half of the shit they are doing Congress is strictly defined in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution and can not go outside3 of those lines. Also we are not a country of enumerated rights we are a country of enumerated powers as established and clarified in the Bill of Rights (9th amendment)

glennmagusharvey

What job?

The "job" of government has been changing constantly, FWIW.

Forzare

"I can think of one way off the top of my head - the thirteenth amendment says that slavery is illegal, which means we shouldn't be paying taxes to fund anything except the military, or we're essentially bound in involuntary servitude toward [public school students, welfare recipients, medicare beneficiaries, take your pick]."

That depends on your definition of slavery.

"The single most-abused clause in the document.  "Commerce" does not mean "business."  It means "commerce" - as in the act of moving goods from point A to point B.  Not things that directly affect commerce.  Not things that indirectly affect commerce.  The commerce itself.  And it doesn't give the federal government the authority to regulate intrastate commerce, either."

I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court has set the precedent of Commerce Clause as affecting all business.

delta534

For reference here is section article 1 section eight of the US constitution

Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;\

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Please note the bolded parts.

glennmagusharvey

Because commercials only ever advertise freight services, and the "chamber of commerce" organizations only include trucking and other transport businesses.  Right. :P

Last time I checked, "commerce" referred to basically any for-profit economic activity.  For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce

FrodoGoofballCoTV

You're a strict constructonist, I'm a loose constructionist.

My concerns about big government are more fiscal than constitutional.
* Many countries borrow money to grow government beyond what taxes allow.  For several nations (Greece, Spain, possibly Japan, and at the current rate, the U.S. in a few years) are facing a major crisis because public demand has prevented the government from balancing the budget.
* Increasing taxes drives companies to look elsewhere for investment, harming opportunities for private business to explore opportunities to grow the economy and reduce unemployment.
* Increasing regulations creates chaos and confusion for small businesses and individuals trying to get stuff done without having to go through small armies of accountants, lawyers, etc., stifling creativity in the private sector.

From a philisophical point of view, I would argue the question is essentially which is more able to solve the problems facing society - business, which offers more creativity and efficiency driven by competition, or government, which offers ethics and efficiency driven by electing officials?  Obviously both are required, but libertarians argue government cannot match the efficiency of business, while authoritarians argue that business cannot be trusted with humanity's future.

glennmagusharvey

How about having each side keep a check on the other?  Sounds like a useful first idea, though we obviously have to sort out the details of how that'll happen.

Gelzo

Maybe I missed something, but how is this different from the other thread's topic?

glennmagusharvey

That one's about corruption specifically.

Tnu1138

It's worth noting before an yone points out that this sections use of the word "regulate" means ""to make regular" not "to restrict" or "to prohibit". so trying to pull that in defense of all these federal agencies is incorrect.

Forzare

So you think that the government prohibiting, say, monopolies is bad?

Tnu1138

If it's an important aspect that people htink should go to government then it is either already in the Constitution or it will be put in the Consituttion through a supermajority of 3/4s of the nation.

Turtle

Last time I checked, "commerce" referred to basically any for-profit economic activity.
What the word denotes now is irrelevant.  Based on the intent of the founders, the only logical definition of "interstate commerce" is "the shipment of goods across state lines."

Forzare

But that's not how the Supreme Court has defined it through precedent.

And we can't operate on intent, we can only operate on what's in the document, by your logic.  And the document doesn't specify.

Turtle

We have to operate by intent, or the document could be twisted to say anything.  Plus it's kind of common sense to do that, anyway.  Why bother keeping to the Constitution at all if we don't agree with the intent behind it?  I mean, I know politicians don't seem to bother holding to it these days anyway, but they claim to.

The Supreme Court isn't infallible in its interpretations, either.

glennmagusharvey

> What the word denotes now is irrelevant.  Based on the intent of the
founders, the only logical definition of "interstate commerce" is "the
shipment of goods across state lines."

...uh...what?

Also, what about the provision of services across state lines?

Forzare

Just because it's not infallible doesn't make it not the law.

And it started to define what counted as commerce about twenty years after the constitution was written.  The word can't have shifted that much so as to obscure the intent in that time.