Why would you hate your nationa governmebt and call for smaller government? I would imagine it being anti nationaliatic to have a weak small government. I think the government should be as big and strong as its people as so with the assyrians and Romans and colonial powers, a weak poeople is a smaller andbweak government to ensure human Providence over a guaranteed life. I believe this is a big issue with the united states, particularly with libertarians and american brand of conservatives, the very fact that they voted for dobald trump (I did vote for him as well but for different reason) in hopes of reversing the obama administrations big government policies and regulation of the toxic capitalist free market further illustrates this point.
How is small government beneficial to the nation
Other urls found in this thread:
merriam-webster.com
twitter.com
No government is best government.
Because the government has proven corrupt and serves only the interests of corporations. Why would you want to give something already fucked more power?
Then how will you have an easier life with no government or any human like Providence?
Also most conservatives hate the Republican party because they claim to be the party of small government yet never deliver.
>Because the government has proven corrupt and serves only the interests of corporations. Why would you want to give something already fucked more power?
So youre telling me that instead of improving the government you rather castrate it and give it severe limitations?
in dixie's land I take my stand, live and die in dixie
Small government is stronger. The economy would be more prosperous and the country would be richer. Less govt spending means less debt. The US has 20 trillion dollars in debt, one day the economy is going to crash because of it. You can't print and borrow money forever.
>Also most conservatives hate the Republican party because they claim to be the party of small government yet never deliver.
I an american and I dont want.a smaller government, I want a government that is as big and expensive as its nation it is issueing Providence; however, I want the government improved and efficient and I think its possible.
>in dixie's land I take my stand, live and die in dixie
Never would I ever see a day when a kraut evokes love for a libertarian slave regime
Of course. Anyone can remove the improvements any time. Your ideology isn't guaranteed to win elections always. A bad/corrupt group could step in and abuse the big government's power. Even if it was a dictatorship, you can't guarantee the supreme leader and his successors aren't corrupt forever
once our own nation, then joined the union, but still could legally leave, joined the confederacy, lost the war, lost the right to legally leave, FUCKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK
> (You)
>Of course. Anyone can remove the improvements any time. Your ideology isn't guaranteed to win elections always. A bad/corrupt group could step in and abuse the big government's power. Even if it was a dictatorship, you can't guarantee the supreme leader and his successors aren't corrupt forever
I think if you're going to have government, it's duty is to ensure Providence for the nation, even if that government becomes a horrible dictator, at least it would peovide public care and promote fertility and keep public order. I wouod rather a government emulating a divine all powerful being telling my nation and me including what we can do and not do than live in a society where there are absolutely no safety nets and you die from exposure to the elements, even if that government is in the wrong and it still is protecting and helping the nation it is still more preferable.
To have government means to negotiate your wants, values, and rights. The larger a government is, the more constituents and land it rules over, the lower your individual influence over your government becomes and the frequency by which you'll have to accept conditions you don't want increases.
The smaller government is, or as power is concentrated more locally, citizens under that government get better representation. Their say counts more, and the say of people who live thousands of miles away in drastically different conditions influences them less.
>To have government means to negotiate your wants, values, and rights. The larger a government is, the more constituents and land it rules over, the lower your individual influence over your government becomes and the frequency by which you'll have to accept conditions you don't want increases.
>The smaller government is, or as power is concentrated more locally, citizens under that government get better representation. Their say counts more, and the say of people who live thousands of miles away in drastically different conditions influences them less.
I see, and when has that ever worked out so well?
Centralized govt us inherently pro jewish because it allows a minirity hostile to the majority to run things.
dude, you're attempting to conjure up reminisces of the Roman fucking Empire in your OP, and you've got the gall to ask HURRR WHEN HAS SMALL GUB'MINT WORKED
jesus fucking christ dude
United States of America before 20th century.
> (You)
>dude, you're attempting to conjure up reminisces of the Roman fucking Empire in your OP, and you've got the gall to ask HURRR WHEN HAS SMALL GUB'MINT WORKED
>jesus fucking christ dude
At least the assyrian and roman empire got shit done as big governments, despite their degenerative escapades.
> (You)
>United States of America before 20th century.
Ah yes when we had slavery and a civil war that was exploded from the idea of outlawing slavery because "muh rights" and "muh liberties n shiiet" were threatened by da' ebil gobment because I couldnt own a slave.
and furthermore, would you care to rub your brain cells together a bit and reckon on the similarities between the American Empire and the Roman Empire of old?
at war on a dozen or more frontiers with long-spanning permanent military bases among populations that care nothing for us
constantly debasing the currency (bye bye gold standard in '33), complete fiat with inflation to meet
allowing and in many cases clamoring for non-native immigration
and you want a BIG OLE FUKKEN GUB'MINT dontch'a? so there can be a big, bad, hard "we", huh?
just like the fucking Romans had, huh?
> (You)
>and furthermore, would you care to rub your brain cells together a bit and reckon on the similarities between the American Empire and the Roman Empire of old?
>at war on a dozen or more frontiers with long-spanning permanent military bases among populations that care nothing for us
>constantly debasing the currency (bye bye gold standard in '33), complete fiat with inflation to meet
>allowing and in many cases clamoring for non-native immigration
>and you want a BIG OLE FUKKEN GUB'MINT dontch'a? so there can be a big, bad, hard "we", huh?
>just like the fucking Romans had, huh?
I agree that we may have to rethink our interests a bit omin this instance.
>we hate the Jews because they use a nation's government to attack and disarm its citizens
>what, why would you want to take away the weapon they're using to bludgeon us with
governmental power always ends up being misused by nefarious (((forces))), you're retarded for wanting to give them even more power over your life
put oklahoma in the fucking map.
We are a southern state whether you fucking like it or not.
I honestly hate you fucking fags
and kentucky and west virginia and missouri. Honestly, its annoying as shit how no one puts us in the confederate memes just because we weren't a state yet.
t. okiebro
Both sides were pro-small government though, not just slave owners.
there's no fucking "we have to rethink" in this, man. how are you gonna convince god-knows how many congressmen, executive branch assholes, judiciary cunts, and all the rest to "rethink" a few things? when you're competing with Saudi money, Israeli talons, big business cartel shekels, all the rest of it?
decentralize or continue in admittedly-comfortable shackles, and nothing less
> (You)
>Both sides were pro-small government though, not just slave owners.
Hold up, tell me why the south seceded then? Why Robert E lee joined the confederate army?
well, been researching this a good bit. before the civil war, in general, the democrat party (almost entirely in the south) kept the republicans, evolved from the federalists in check.
however, the democrats/southerners were more than happy to use the fugitive slave acts to enforce southern laws on northern soil. even compelled random-ass northern citizens to assist in capture of runaway slaves.
couldn't really say that either side was honestly truly small-gub'mint lovers..the leaders, anyway. naturally, most of the folk loved liberty outside of religious puritans that wanted to enforce moral laws.
If that's what you think the civil war was about, you're too much of a brainlet to be reasoned with.
The idea that the civil war was primarily about slavery is anachronistic and small picture as fuck. The Union's refusal to allow secession wasn't some moral crusade against slavery.
It isn't as if The Union would have just been cool with secession if the Confederate gripe was taxation or just a generalized dispute over state sovereignty (hint: It almost was. School yourself on nullification crisis).
The real meat of what was on the table was that the economic repercussions and both domestic and geopolitical implications of Southern secession would have been unacceptable to the Union. Who would the South align itself with? Will other states follow suit and secede if they become discontent with federal rule? Will the South gain new territory and become a threat?
These are the questions that the North was concerned with, not "ZOMG poor niggers" Per usual, war is about power and resources.
>most of the folk loved liberty outside of religious puritans that wanted to enforce moral laws
“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” - Benjamin Franklin
merriam-webster.com
>Definition of virtuous
>1 a : having or exhibiting virtue
>b : morally excellent : righteous a virtuous decision
>2 : chaste
>3 : potent, efficacious
>ow is small government beneficial to the nation
It's not
So you're fine with being a slave then?
As long as Ol' Massa gives you food & shelter, you're fine with being his lil' pet nigger?
Fine by me, but don't drag me into your shitty system.