Any specifics? "Limit the size of government" is a trite platitude that anyone could agree with on some level. Shove 100 random people in a room and you have 200 conflicting ideas about the appropriate role of government.
M-x libertopians-vs-lefties
Mindless it may seem because of no resulting action 99% of the time, but the same can be said of pre-flight engine tests.
Terrible analogy. If engines were intelligent beings constantly plotting and trying to fail, no one would dare fly, no matter how many pre-flight checks there were.
All large organizations, not just government, have a clear and strong tendency to grow.
The sad fact is, there is no good solution. Switzerland's direct democracy might be one, however:
1. Switzerland is tiny.
2. What are the chances the US, or any other country, will radically reconfigure its constitution and system of government.
A more realistic scenario is what has happened in other places. Like in the UK in the 1970s or Sweden in the early 19th century. Government grows so big and inefficient that a radical shrinking of it is forced upon everyone. It is an ugly and painful process and occasionally goes horribly wrong. But it's pretty much the only proven way governments have significantly shrunk in the real world.
I am assuming this is hyperbole, but if it isn't, it should be noted that politicians aren't trying to blow up the systems they govern. No elite is. The situation where short-term interests systematically countermand long-term interests results from a mis-alignment of incentives in the system; it is nothing germane to government.
All large organizations...have a tendency to grow
Actually, no. They empirically tend to evaporate away. Most organisations have a desire to grow.
Switzerland
I'm Swiss, and yes, I agree that we have a damn good system of governance :). But it is very nuanced moderated democracy that exists in a specific environment. I am not so sure it would work in a more heterogenous society; we are having terribly xenophobic reactions to our Muslim minority.
The demands of Government are not the same as they were in 1787. Instead of 4M people living in relative isolation we now have 310M people participating in a global economy.
Personally I want a Government than provides the necessary infrastructure and regulatory environment for a modern economy....
It will be a lot easier to pretend the bot is human if it refuses to talk on other topics. And politics on the internet is a horse beaten to a smooth pulp, so the bot could have a HUGE library to search for both question and argument.
A sincere implementation could actually educate a lot of people. Not change their stance, but elevate their arguments.
Yow!
If yes, it might be small or large. If no, then it must be small.
It would not have been more clear to phrase it as the following:
""" > It's about small government vs. large government when it should be about good government, regardless of size
But the problem is that large government, by the very fact of its scope and size, involves itself too much in the lives and business of its citizens. The proper role of government is to mediate in the conflicts that arise between the rights and desires of its citizens, striving to best protect those rights and the liberty of each individual while constraining that liberty and the pursuit of individual and collective well being as little as possible. Thus, smaller government is better government.
The problems arising from expansive government powers and the desirability of strictly limiting government power are explored extensively in various writings of the founders of the American Republic. """
(and note the "attr." is "attributed to")
I'd be more interested in seeing specific reasons why that sentiment would be true in this particular case, and not just statements of arbitrary opinion or faith. Otherwise it just adds noise and informs no one.
Maybe you think differently but I find that I'm not likely to learn anything from a trite aphorism and I also am inclined to believe that trading trite aphorisms is not a way to engage in discussion that will make any kind of progress for anyone involved other than a contest of which chorus can neigh and bleat the longest.
http://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/gove...
It'd be ideal if a couple of laws could be passed to limit or restrict the power of the government to regulate markets, intervene in private matters other than property rights and (to an extent) citizen protection (don't let them get as big as the TSA is, for instance), etc.
The problem is the federal government has ignored the constitution the last 80 years. And the people/states haven't cared enough to do anything.