When republicans shout "small government" what does it mean?

A government big enough to issue and enforce privileges for the privileged and stop the victims of privilege from defending themselves against the privileged, but not big enough to rescue the victims from enslavement by the privileged.

 

Bingo. When the police spend so much of their time meddling in private business they should not be meddling in, and so little time actually protecting the people from violation of their rights, it is natural to want them to just go away.

 

Sorry. You have no constitutional right to drive on public roads. When you are granted permission, you agree to obey the rules of the road.

This is a seriously dumb hill to die on.

Let's discuss some truly atrocious laws, like possession of something that literally grows like weeds in ditches you mentioned. (Hence the term ditch weed.)

 

The right to travel is a subject for debate.

https://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/travel.htm

You make a good point when it comes to weed. Like driving without a seat belt, smoking weed is bad for your health. If we are going to allow the government to force healthy habits, shouldn't we outlaw tobacco, fast food, and sitting on the couch? Unhealthy diet and lack of exercise costs you far more than providing care for those not wearing a seat belt.

 

Actually were the framers alive, they'd argue that the commerce clause as well as the freedom of association cover our rights of travel. But it's not a dumb hilll to die on because you're both arguing for the same thing: The reduction of bad laws so we can safely enforce good ones.

 

For sure. My vision for government will never happen because it isn't in the interest of government. I'm surprised a pair of shoes costs $200. I know I haven't paid that much.

 

Well, this is just silly logic.

If anyone has the right to use the roads, and need not comply with any rules, what's to prevent a private plane owner from landing on I-95? For that matter, why should someone need to go to flight school? What's to prevent a group of runners from just taking over a busy highway?

The license isn't prevention; it's so there is some assurance that you have a basic understanding of the rules of the road that we all must comply with in order to avoid as many accidents as possible. Almost every accident is caused by someone not following those rules.

 

You and me both. My vision of government would be minimal taxation and interference in our lives.

 

What prevents oncoming traffic from coming into your lane causing a head on collision? I agree with you on this, but the right to land your plane or swing your fist ends where the rights of others begin.

BTW, I used to be a pilot. Someone did land on the I-95:
https://turnto10.com/news/local/plane-makes-emergency-landing-on-i-95

 

That's why I chose I-95.

But, no. Right to travel freely by your definition means right to travel freely. If we don't have to agree to rules of the road to drive, then there's no proof that roads are only for cars, trucks & motorcycles. It could mean planes, helicopters, bicycles, runners, etc.

So, we have rules of the road. In order to drive on the road, you have to demonstrate knowledge of rules of the road. Hence; driver's licenses.

 

No you just "abort" him. Silly answer to a silly question.

 

Serious question. You are against disability benefits. What is your alternative?

Work houses & prisons?

 

The real issue is where we draw the line. Somewhere between highway anarchy and everyone driving a tank. I think seat belt laws were created to bring in more revenue. Taxing and fining is not always the answer. More can be done with less government. How about a tax incentive for auto makers to invent technology that automatically senses a buckled seat belt before the car can move? Will we still need seat belts when cars can drive themselves and have technology to prevent accidents in the first place?

BTW, if I put my motorcycle in gear when the kickstand is down, the engine cuts off.

 

So it's an interesting concept, but it sounds like an expensive solution to a non-problem.

Seat belt laws keep costs down. Period. If it doesn't cost anything while saving money, it's a total no-brainer. Nobody is inconvenienced, either.

I have been zero harmed by the seat belt laws. I have been harmed by the archaic drug laws.

 

You are incorrect. It allows law enforcement to abuse their power. Many of the drug busts start with being pulled over for a minor infraction. Most poor do not know their rights and end up consenting to a search. When they know their rights and do not consent to a search, they call in a dog to react to a smell that gives them probable cause to search. If you have seen a few episodes of COPS, you would not say that no one is harmed.

 

Nice post. I agree 100%.

Seat belts are a no brainer.

1. Inconveniences zero people
2. Costs nothing to implement
3. Saves boatloads of taxpayer dollars, starting at ambulances and EMTs all the way through a lifetime of disability payments.

Banning fast food? The list of freedoms that restricts is nauseatingly long.

There's no loss of anything, anywhere in that law.

Freedom? Nah. You are free to use the roads if you follow the rules of the road. Done.

Pro tip for @Doofenshmirtz - in my drug doing 80's days, I learned quickly to verify the car's lights were working, had a valid sticker and I wore my seat belt. Stop at all stop signs, too. It's moronic to be carrying contraband in your car and then break road laws.

 

Well when conservatives say it it means a federal government that sticks to those things authorized by the Constitution and not try to run our lives as they see fit through regulation and taxation.

 

Well said and worth reading. When it comes down to it, laws to protect us from ourselves appear to be based on cash flow to the government. The Standard American Diet (SAD) is the leading cause of most illnesses, but most of it is subsidized by tax dollars. The care for our lives disappears if it means less money going to the government. Illegal pot keeps money flowing to the prison system. (And to the cartels)

If an action doesn't turn another person into a victim, there should be no law.

 

We can fix this by simply putting Iowa further in the calendar on the primary list. Every candidate has to go there and make their pledge to king corn. If they were part of Super Tuesday, instead, it would help.

 

King corn can always count on politicians making it cheaper to buy corn than grow it. Diabetes kills more than auto accidents and costs tax payers more to care for them. Seat belt laws have nothing to do with the government caring about our health. Their level of "concern" for our lives is in direct proportion to the cash flow that "concern" creates.

 

It's literally one small way the government saves money. I'm not sure why you are against saving taxpayer money, when there is no downside.

 

Ever hear of St. Judes??? Whenever private money can be used to help the unfortunate, it should be encouraged. If government let us keep more for ourselves it could happen more. Families and Communities do it best. It can't be transformed over night but much could be done to keep the bureaucratic leeches from siphoning off money intended for charitable giving. I know Curious, you like to walk the fence line. I am the bad guy because I speak out about such things. However, I assure you I do my share of giving as I am able. Maybe we should work to strengthen American families. That would help a large percentage of "welfare claims". There is a lot that could and should be done.

 

I am in complete agreement with you on this.

In the meantime, let's save money where we can, when it costs nothing to do so.

We just got our first stimulus check and I immediately gave a huge chunk of it to food banks and toys for tots. We're getting more fortunate as we age; my husband's got a great job, so we're able to give far more than we ever have before.

 

The only interest government has in saving money is to line personal pockets of government bureaucrats,,,,,and there are a lot of them. Far too many.