I don’t disagree with that. But I don’t think that has to happen. It can happen. Anything can happen. Just because it happens doesn’t mean I change my mind about my position. She’s right though, and I don’t think GMAC should be getting propped up like that.
So says you.
Really? Is there a reason it’s not “your” limited government? (if you are a citizen of another country then I understand your statement, otherwise, I really would like to know why you said this)
I didn’t make that call, Chloe.
No. So says the headlines. So says the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers. So says the $11 trillion in debt, increasing by $2 trillon per year, to says the Fed printing $1.7M trillion in 12 months…need I say more?
Those were choices other people made. People who aren’t of the limited government school. I can’t be blamed for their mistakes just because I happen to think there should be a government.
I mean it would be like if an anarchist person blew up a building. You’re not all responsible just because you subscribe to an-cap. I blame the people responsible. Guilt by association is a dubious charge. Especially when the association isn’t even there.
bloom,
gov’t is only present for power. what you think how a gov’t should or should not be, doesn’t matter. gov’t doesn’t understand ideas. it only understands power.
I think what they are asking is how will you keep your ‘limited government’ limited. When the rules to expand are set by the ‘government’. Also w hat happens when your limited governments members are for government expansion, as opposed to limited government?
Government is a tool, like a gun. I said this before. Blame the person pulling the trigger, don’t blame the gun. Guns are neutral. So are governments. They take on the shape and direction of whoever is wielding them. Blame the people responsible. Not me.
Now THAT’s the real question.
“Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.” - James Madison
because all human nature have freedom right so they don’t want the other creature have the same right
I didn’t blame you unless you think you are the gov’t - which you did say the gov’t is of the people so I guess you do think the gov’t is apart of you - so that’s why you think I blamed you when I only pointed out that the gov’t desires power and could care less about anybody’s ideas?
And for somebody that supposedly understands Machiavelli, you missed this one. Gov’t is power. It’s not about ideas. That’s bloom101.
Bloom, you didn’t provide an answer. You provided a quote that for all I can tell is riddled with nonsense. I cannot tell you why however unless you allow us to admit logic back into the discussion again.
And I mean universal logic. I’m not talking about assertions or opinions I hold.
Remember our previous discussion, when I said Nazi Germany was a “10”, and the U.S. was a “7”. You said the U.S. was more of a “5”. Remember how I pointed out that the silly numbers game doesn’t mean anything. My point is this: You said, in effect, the U.S. is a limited government compared to… etc, etc. So now you’re saying that the examples I point out are “choices made by people who are not of the limited government school…etc.”
I am not blaming you for anything. You had nothing to do with it, obviously (why would these people ask you or I what we think they should do, after all, they are the “limited government”). Guilt by association has nothing to do with it. My only point is: We HAVE a “limited government”. And look what it does.
.
I read Machiavelli in two ways. One is a prescription for power, the other as a warning. Gov’t is power. But power is, I think, inevitable. The question I ask is “can we wield it?” I think the answer is yes. But it’s a real challenge. There is no easy solution. I know that the an-cap answer is to eliminate government. I don’t think that’s going to happen and that even if it happens that the solution is that simple. As long as man exists, we’ll be playing this game. If no one takes Machiavelli seriously, they won’t learn to see power as a double-edged sword. And right now people don’t see it that way.
But your logic depends on premises that I don’t accept.
Yes, I remember the discussion, I think the number 5 or 6 is fair.
Just because it’s limited compared to others doesn’t mean it represents the limited government I want to see. But everything is relative so I understand what you’re saying.
Think about it this way, there are certain handguns that are basically designed for use on people. We don’t assume that the gun will be used to kill someone just because it can. Why not? Because the gun is just a tool. It can be used with care. Or not. In any case, that’s the responsibility of the owners, not the gun. You’re blaming government for being a potentially deadly weapon. I blame the people wielding the gun.
bloom,
as i said. it doesn’t matter what you think how the gov’t should or shouldn’t be. As you stated, gov’t is power. It’s not about philosophy or economics. Gov’t is only interested in politics, ie power. Your idea of a limited gov’t is only an idea, ie philosophical. It’s not about politics. A political stance can have an idea on how to wield the power of gov’t but that means nothing as gov’t is only about power, not ideas. Once in power ideas have no place. It’s not about who wields gov’t with what kind of idea. It’s about who wields gov’t and has the power. I feel like I’m teaching bloom on what bloom says.
I really don’t think you do. I’m not saying everything is relative. I’m saying is, the scale that used to measure whether or not a government is limited… it’s the scale that is irrelevant. All government ends up like what has happened to the U.S. James Madison, perhaps, offered the best chance at “limited government”, and look what happened: The experiment failed.