"Power never concedes anything without a demand; it never has and it never will."
Sam Adams
"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
Small: Articles of Confederation. That is the only one i know for sure. I would rather not just look up a whole bunch of small governments that have failed to make a point so instead i will assume (uh-oh) a situation.
To make my own quote that is the inverse of the Jefferson quote, "A government large enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to protect you from having it taken away." Lets say there is a country that has a small government. Lets say that country is in South America or Africa somewhere. If that government is too small, it will be, and, i assume, has frequently been overthrown by a rival group.
I thought of the samething too with small government failing. But they couldn't even levy taxes. I'm not a big fan of taxes but the government needs something, and donations are kind of a pipe-dream. Although for big governments, I would have to go with USSR, Nazi Germany, Roman Empire (it lasted a long time but it fell apart because it was so huge.) British Empire in the early 1900s. Cuba. So I find it easier to say small governments are less destructive.
Good point with the Jefferson quote. It almost seems there needs to be a balance between small and big government. I don't think a weak government is the same as calling it a small government. A government can be small and not be weak, but on the flip side, a large government is inherently strong. Your inverse quote also points to, what I believe, is the greatest struggle of all societies; the struggle between Liberty and security. In a small government your Liberty maybe at risk from outside/inside threats, but at least you have Liberty. In a big government your Liberty is secured (equal protection), but at what cost; your Liberty (privacy and property)
yeah, that is the eternal struggle of government rights and liberties, which to sacrifice, which to bend, which to hold fast, etc. And what to do when your rights are in conflict with my liberties.
I almost mentioned USSR in my post but i decided that it wasn't so much the government that was its downfall but the economy. While the two are at times difficult to separate, especially when the economy is a controlled economy, we can still see examples of big governments where the economy is open and growing (China). Nazi Germany i feel like there a re too many factors to really make a reasonable assessment for this conversation. Maybe it would have faded out after Hitler died since he was such a charismatic, demagogic leader but we can't really say.
There are nations like France and Canada (i know, i know, why the hell would we want to be like France or Canada!?) where they are succeeding with a large government.
I go back and forth about listening to strongly to the founding fathers. I think that they are immensely intelligent and planned the structure of our government with shocking foresight (with the occasional oversight) but there was no way they could anticipate what we have become and what the world has become. So i wonder how far we can take their advice, instructions, and warnings. I feel like at best we can only hold to the heart of their ideas, i.e. progression, experimentation, or whatever their intentions or motivations were.
You are right. Technology and todays world is different from the world the founding fathers lived in. This maybe a leep... I think one could argue that the founding fathers were seperating themselves from a strong centralized empire (the British Crown). They wanted to set up an alternative to a empire style government, hince they created a Republic. Is it too far to say that today the US has become this strong centralized empire and even today as it was yesterday a Republic is the natural alternative.
When I talk about the Dream of a rebuilding a small loose government here in America, many people say that it can't work because of the times. They maybe correct. Maybe because of airplanes, computers, population, ect. ect. society can no longer go back to a Republic. We have progressed to something different. But are not strong centralized governments older and more pre-historic that Republics? If we are progressing and evolving, then why set up such an ancient-style government? King Louis 14th, 15, and 16th believed they were the father to the many children (citzens) of France. I find that people see Obama as a father figure, or the state as a nanny (mother) figure. IS this not old-fashion and countlessly be proven foolish. In what time period did we as humans progress the most, but during a Republic style era. So I still hold as truth that Republics are not the past-but they are still our future. A week government is the progressive view, while a centralized strong government is ancient.
Interesting thought about "post-hitler Nazi Germany". We will never know but, i think there is something there with what you said, and I never thought about that.
I think we are on the same page about the Dream. A mall government would be the best. The maximum liberties and minimal intervention but i guess we differ on its feasibility. Its not so much the age of the strong central government or the Republic that is the problem but how practically it can be applied. I mean a republic is really old as well. It is not a NEW government that i think is needed but a more appropriate from of the one we have.
I think that it is appropriate to factor in a certain amount of reactionism in the plan that the founders laid out. I feel like if the founders were breaking away from a weak government there would be a larger amount of power building structures in the plan.
Small: Articles of Confederation. That is the only one i know for sure. I would rather not just look up a whole bunch of small governments that have failed to make a point so instead i will assume (uh-oh) a situation.
ReplyDeleteTo make my own quote that is the inverse of the Jefferson quote, "A government large enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to protect you from having it taken away." Lets say there is a country that has a small government. Lets say that country is in South America or Africa somewhere. If that government is too small, it will be, and, i assume, has frequently been overthrown by a rival group.
I thought of the samething too with small government failing. But they couldn't even levy taxes. I'm not a big fan of taxes but the government needs something, and donations are kind of a pipe-dream.
ReplyDeleteAlthough for big governments, I would have to go with USSR, Nazi Germany, Roman Empire (it lasted a long time but it fell apart because it was so huge.) British Empire in the early 1900s. Cuba. So I find it easier to say small governments are less destructive.
Good point with the Jefferson quote. It almost seems there needs to be a balance between small and big government. I don't think a weak government is the same as calling it a small government. A government can be small and not be weak, but on the flip side, a large government is inherently strong. Your inverse quote also points to, what I believe, is the greatest struggle of all societies; the struggle between Liberty and security. In a small government your Liberty maybe at risk from outside/inside threats, but at least you have Liberty. In a big government your Liberty is secured (equal protection), but at what cost; your Liberty (privacy and property)
yeah, that is the eternal struggle of government rights and liberties, which to sacrifice, which to bend, which to hold fast, etc. And what to do when your rights are in conflict with my liberties.
ReplyDeleteI almost mentioned USSR in my post but i decided that it wasn't so much the government that was its downfall but the economy. While the two are at times difficult to separate, especially when the economy is a controlled economy, we can still see examples of big governments where the economy is open and growing (China). Nazi Germany i feel like there a re too many factors to really make a reasonable assessment for this conversation. Maybe it would have faded out after Hitler died since he was such a charismatic, demagogic leader but we can't really say.
There are nations like France and Canada (i know, i know, why the hell would we want to be like France or Canada!?) where they are succeeding with a large government.
I go back and forth about listening to strongly to the founding fathers. I think that they are immensely intelligent and planned the structure of our government with shocking foresight (with the occasional oversight) but there was no way they could anticipate what we have become and what the world has become. So i wonder how far we can take their advice, instructions, and warnings. I feel like at best we can only hold to the heart of their ideas, i.e. progression, experimentation, or whatever their intentions or motivations were.
You are right. Technology and todays world is different from the world the founding fathers lived in. This maybe a leep... I think one could argue that the founding fathers were seperating themselves from a strong centralized empire (the British Crown). They wanted to set up an alternative to a empire style government, hince they created a Republic. Is it too far to say that today the US has become this strong centralized empire and even today as it was yesterday a Republic is the natural alternative.
ReplyDeleteWhen I talk about the Dream of a rebuilding a small loose government here in America, many people say that it can't work because of the times. They maybe correct. Maybe because of airplanes, computers, population, ect. ect. society can no longer go back to a Republic. We have progressed to something different. But are not strong centralized governments older and more pre-historic that Republics? If we are progressing and evolving, then why set up such an ancient-style government? King Louis 14th, 15, and 16th believed they were the father to the many children (citzens) of France. I find that people see Obama as a father figure, or the state as a nanny (mother) figure. IS this not old-fashion and countlessly be proven foolish. In what time period did we as humans progress the most, but during a Republic style era. So I still hold as truth that Republics are not the past-but they are still our future. A week government is the progressive view, while a centralized strong government is ancient.
Interesting thought about "post-hitler Nazi Germany". We will never know but, i think there is something there with what you said, and I never thought about that.
I think we are on the same page about the Dream. A mall government would be the best. The maximum liberties and minimal intervention but i guess we differ on its feasibility. Its not so much the age of the strong central government or the Republic that is the problem but how practically it can be applied. I mean a republic is really old as well. It is not a NEW government that i think is needed but a more appropriate from of the one we have.
ReplyDeleteI think that it is appropriate to factor in a certain amount of reactionism in the plan that the founders laid out. I feel like if the founders were breaking away from a weak government there would be a larger amount of power building structures in the plan.