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

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Patricio Da Silva, Dec 29, 2020.

  1. Nightmare515

    Nightmare515 Ragin' Cajun Staff Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,132
    Likes Received:
    4,899
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I agree with you about the seatbelt laws but then I ask this also. Well why not helmets as well then? I believe helmets would further limit the potential damage done during an accident but in order to use helmets effectively in that manner we would need 3 point restraint harnesses like racecar drivers use. But, combined together they would work much better than a seatbelt alone and further reduce the number of injuries in automobile accidents. Is wearing a helmet and getting in and out of a harness an inconvenience or a hassle? Yes, but it'll save your life. So why not? We already "inconvenience" you by making you wear a seatbelt by law so why not a step further? Who set's the arbitrary bar regarding what is an "acceptable" level of inconvenience for your own safety?

    So for those who say such a proposal is "too far" then I say well who are you to believe yourself deserving of my tax dollars to save your life in the hospital then after that nasty accident that put you there? You were wearing a seatbelt sure but it wasn't enough, if you had a 3 point harness and helmet you would be walking away right now but now you can't walk at all and now I have to pay for you. All because wearing a helmet was "inconvenient" for you so you don't want to mandate that?

    I of course do not actually propose such a thing but that's the sort of rabbit hole I'm talking about and in the grand scheme of things it's an argument that has merit. The big government vs small government argument will always boil down to what particular areas each individual prefers the government intervene and restrict your freedom in some capacity.

    There is a "loss" of something with seatbelt laws, it's the loss of my freedom to choose whether or not I want to wear one. How much that "matters" will depend on the individual person. Some look at it in a more philosophical way than others, very few folks actually "care" that they have to wear one as if it hurts them or something, it's more like should the government have the power to tell me I have to do something like that?
     
    nobodyspecific likes this.
  2. Curious Always

    Curious Always Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2016
    Messages:
    16,924
    Likes Received:
    13,462
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    I'm done arguing about seat belt laws, that have literally nothing to do with corruption in DC.
     
  3. nobodyspecific

    nobodyspecific Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2011
    Messages:
    562
    Likes Received:
    741
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Would like to third that after @Curious Always and @Doofenshmirtz, very nicely stated. The hypocrisy of "protect you from yourself" laws is why I am philosophically opposed to such laws, but can sometimes understand their utility. There are plenty of unsafe activities one can partake in that may incur additional cost on the taxpayer, or within the health care system. Base jumping, skydiving, bungee jumping, football, boxing, UFC, snowboarding, all are unnecessarily risky ways to get yourself injured or sometimes killed.

    Yet, they are apparently deemed safe enough for one to do. Using certain substances on oneself, consuming too much sugar drink from the same receptacle, not using or wearing the proper safety attire when engaging in certain activities - these are far too unsafe. At least in the case of mandated safety attire / equipment, you are still allowed to partake in the action.

    Of course, even without "protect you from yourself", there is always the even more nebulous and toxic fallback of the government's interest in protecting "public morality", which we can just as easily dump all drug laws under even without the "protect you from yourself" argument. And as long as one can ascribe any given actions as being immoral (promoting violence, promoting sloth, promoting lust, filthy language, etc), one can also argue to effectively ban or regulate said activity that we do not personally like.

    The ideal world would not see fit to allow government to get away with such rationalizations for their laws. But, we do not live in that world, and I do not see it ever changing.
     
    Doofenshmirtz likes this.
  4. yabberefugee

    yabberefugee Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2017
    Messages:
    20,619
    Likes Received:
    8,981
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Neither am I. Driving is a privilege as I said in an earlier post. States have every right to mandate seat belt laws. A mass of steel going down the road at 70 mph needs regulation.
     
    Last edited: Dec 30, 2020
  5. Curious Always

    Curious Always Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2016
    Messages:
    16,924
    Likes Received:
    13,462
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    I'm done arguing about seat belt laws. The slippery slope example you gave is ridiculous.

    You don't have the freedom to run a red light or jog in the middle of I-95, either. Not freedom limiting. It costs you zero freedom to buckle up.
     
  6. liberalminority

    liberalminority Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Messages:
    25,273
    Likes Received:
    1,633
    Trophy Points:
    113
    marijuana does not create jobs like Mcdonalds,

    alcoholics tend to work for a living, pot heads are almost always on some type of government assistance.
     
    yabberefugee likes this.
  7. Curious Always

    Curious Always Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2016
    Messages:
    16,924
    Likes Received:
    13,462
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    LOL wut?

    Did you get your stats from Reefer Madness?

    I don't have any friends on government assistance. Most of us smoke pot. My husband and I pay more in taxes than many people earn in a year.
     
    bringiton likes this.
  8. liberalminority

    liberalminority Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Messages:
    25,273
    Likes Received:
    1,633
    Trophy Points:
    113
    big government allows for the genocide of babies with abortions, and everyone high on marijuana while collecting a taxpayer check.

    now that the Supreme Court is mostly conservative there will no more abortions and greater enforcement on addicts.
     
  9. yabberefugee

    yabberefugee Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2017
    Messages:
    20,619
    Likes Received:
    8,981
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Reefer Madness was a disservice to America. It drove me to smoke pot for years. Finally when I came off the high, it was like getting high all over again. I hope you and your husband don't do meth.
     
  10. Curious Always

    Curious Always Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2016
    Messages:
    16,924
    Likes Received:
    13,462
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    LOL wut?

    Meth isn't medicinal.
     
  11. Cybred

    Cybred Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    20,141
    Likes Received:
    7,342
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Cons never understand moderation.
     
  12. Cybred

    Cybred Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    20,141
    Likes Received:
    7,342
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Sorry but you still have the freedom to do that.
     
  13. liberalminority

    liberalminority Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Messages:
    25,273
    Likes Received:
    1,633
    Trophy Points:
    113
    if the government can take your money without your permission, it does not need your permission.
     
  14. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Garbage. The number of jobs created in legal marijuana is roughly proportional to aggregate revenues, just like McDonalds jobs.
    Yeah, especially when they have criminal records for pot possession...

    GET IT????
     
  15. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Right. I only tried pot a few times, not in recent decades, but I have known many, many gainfully employed and even affluent baby boomers who were regular pot users.
     
  16. Curious Always

    Curious Always Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2016
    Messages:
    16,924
    Likes Received:
    13,462
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    The reality is that people on government assistance can't afford much pot.
     
  17. politicalcenter

    politicalcenter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    11,101
    Likes Received:
    6,786
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    When Republicans shout small government it means Democrats are in office. The same when they complain about deficit spending.
     
    Curious Always likes this.
  18. Curious Always

    Curious Always Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2016
    Messages:
    16,924
    Likes Received:
    13,462
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    End thread. LMAO - so true.
     
  19. Nightmare515

    Nightmare515 Ragin' Cajun Staff Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,132
    Likes Received:
    4,899
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The seatbelt law is just an example being used (as it was brought up) to demonstrate the philosophical issue with any "protect you from yourself" law in general. What ends up being the actual goal of the law? Is it to reduce overall deaths? Reduce government (taxpayer) money? Generate taxpayer money like many small towns primarily use it for? Etc. The problem arises because no matter what the actual goal may be there is almost always something else out there that is contributing worse to the "problem" trying to be solved. Nearly every law on the books regarding the legal operations of cars on public roadways in the name of public safety is completely invalided by the mere fact that motorcycles are legal. Car manufacturers are required by law to have seatbelts and airbags installed and functional and you are required to wear on when operating a car. Yet you literally cannot have those things on a motorcycle and if you tap the rear of a car on a motorcycle then over the handlebars you go and likely right through the back window of the car. Sure it doesn't cost any freedom to buckle up in a car but why should I be legally mandated to do that when the dude next to me on the interstate is allowed to operate a vehicle that doesn't even have the ability to buckle up? Even with all the stuff they wear you are still exponentially more likely to be seriously injured or killed on a motorcycle than in a car. So regardless of the reason why the government mandates car safety laws they are hypocritical for the mere fact that they even allow people to ride motorcycles on the highway.

    The point is there is really no red line in the sand for stuff like this, the "line" is criss crossed and zig zagged all over the place based purely on whatever people personally think it should be placed based on a particular subject.

    I can sit here and drink an entire bottle of whiskey and pass out in my bathroom at home and that's perfectly legal but I can't sit here and smoke a joint because that's illegal.
    I can get on a 2 wheeled vehicle and go 75mph on the interstate with no seatbelt, no airbags, and in some states no helmet, perfectly legal. If I get in a 4 wheeled vehicle without a seatbelt that is illegal.
    The list could go on forever.

    That's why I'm a smaller government type of person, we have too many laws and we just keep making more up as we go depending on the flavor of the week and the emotions of the population. Many of which if you honestly take a step back and look at them make no logical sense whatsoever.
     
    nobodyspecific likes this.
  20. Curious Always

    Curious Always Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2016
    Messages:
    16,924
    Likes Received:
    13,462
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    I loathe stupid laws. Period.

    The seat belt law costs nothing, inconveniences nobody and saves taxpayer dollars.

    Get me an actual unnecessary law that is truly freedom limiting, and I'll join in on the fun.

    How about we work to getting the 4th amendment relevant again? We no longer have 4th amendment rights. Let's worry about the big things.
     
  21. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,709
    Likes Received:
    13,465
    Trophy Points:
    113
    LOL - Good one - Truly an Orwellian paradigm that one is - but, unfortunately - the evidence you present is scant at best.

    Allow me to supplement - Since and including Reagan - Red Administrations have spent like princesses with credit cards .. each racking up massive deficits.. Reagan being the biggest Princess - Trump coming in #2 - sans covid. The Bush family being lesser demons .. but princesses through and through when it came to spending / fiscal responsibility - as measured by the massive increases to deficit spending - the main measurement for such things.

    Clinton and Obama would have been princesses -- tis the nature of Gov't after all .. unfortunately - they were both left with such a horrible fiscal mess - that not only could they not increase deficit spending .. they had to reduce it.

    Any fool can increase GDP for a short term by increasing credit card spending - like putting nitrous oxide into an engine .. which is what Mr. T did... and a very short nitro boost at that barley a year and a bit - for a massive increase in deficit spending .. a complete train wreck from a fiscal standpoint .. and nothing to show for but an artificially propped up economy.

    "Small Gov't" ? right . .you mean .. "Defund the Police" ? .. is that what Red is wanting to do ? .. last time I checked Red wanted to increase spending on law enforcement . not decrease.

    The Drug war was a red induced spend of massive proportions .. massive increase in Gov't - coupled with a massive Trampling on individual liberty - the constitution - and the founding principles. .. a complete anathema to Republicanism .. and Classical Liberalism for that matter.

    Sure we can say that Blue was deep in the stink .. but it was Red leading the Charge .. Dollar value estimate anyone ? -- its massive .. and a massive increase in Gov't.

    Red Loves Big Gov't .. how about the Military Spend .. is this not Gov't - not paid for by the tax dollar ? ... Yeah but but but ... no but's .. it is what it is .. Big Gov't.

    In 2000 .. the "Total" military spend .. the VA - Pensions .Dark projects .. Spies ... the whole thing .. was 300 Billion.

    Under 8 years of Bush this spend rose above 900 Billion .. under Obama to over 1 Trillion.

    Had we maintained 2000 spend levels - increasing with inflation .. we could have diverted 500 Billion/year x 16 years = 8 Trillion dollars to things like infrastructure, education, technology, ramping up our economy to compete in the third millennium .. like other countries were doing.

    Instead we threw this money down the toilet - fighting useless wars - justified on the basis of lies, false narratives,, and state sponsored propaganda - coupled with a complicit media.

    What does Trump do ? ... doubles down on Military spending .. increasing it to new heights .. although at least he did not involve us in any new wars .. lack of opportunity perhaps. It has to be around 1.3 Trillion .. disturbing.

    Homeland Security and "intelligence" and CIA eat up 80 Billion/year with 50 Billion in dark projects = 130 Billion in spookdom .. Per Year !

    This is double the entire Federal spend of Mexico - a nation that is 11th in the world in terms of purchasing power.

    To do what .. exactly ? 130 Billion mate ..

    We are on a mindless road into the fiscal and economic abyss .. a declining empire whose glory days have long past.

    and I have not even yet mentioned Healthcare .. the biggest scam .. mind you this one is as much on Blue as on Red.

    Put that number with the previous 8 Trillion into this nation .. rather than waste it and give it away - .. and we would still be the shining star on the hill.
     
  22. Nightmare515

    Nightmare515 Ragin' Cajun Staff Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,132
    Likes Received:
    4,899
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm fine with them as well as long as there is some consistency involved. There is not a single argument that anyone on this planet can logically provide to explain why I can sit here and drink an entire 5th of whiskey and puke and pass out on my couch legally but I can't smoke weed. The only reason there is a law against that is because people in government said so and because people in society want it that way. This specific example is the literal definition of the phrase "because I said so that's why".

    The activities you mentioned have been deemed safe to do so by folks with the authority to make those decisions, nothing more. Some things are objectionably more dangerous than other things based on pure statistics and data, but that metric isn't always used in conjunction with decision making by law makers. In layman's terms, the make stuff up half the time and if pressed enough will try to come up with some extremely complex social metrics when in reality the answer is usually "because we said so" and/or "because the people who vote for us said so".

    The bolded part you said explains it best. The government can and does just arbitrarily come up with whatever rationale they want to regarding whatever law they pass, and half the time society does too. That's why I don't want them having any more power, they have plenty of power already and they literally couldn't objectively explain half of the decisions they make outside of "because".
     
    nobodyspecific likes this.
  23. Nightmare515

    Nightmare515 Ragin' Cajun Staff Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,132
    Likes Received:
    4,899
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You won't find very many "unnecessary" laws because nearly every single law or regulation is necessary in SOME capacity to "somebody". Whether it's necessary enough to be legally mandated is the subjective part that folks will either agree or disagree with based on their own personal feelings. Even something completely dumb will have at least a handful of people in society justifying it's regulation. If you're ever bored and would like some entertainment then take a gander at some random laws in various states that are absolutely ridiculous. But at some point in history elected officials literally got together and decided that was a good idea for their particular community and made it law.

    Hypocritical laws are my problem, the sheer amount of laws isn't even my issue because honestly most of this stuff isn't even enforced. As I stated before I personally have no issue with a seatbelt law, I'm all for it for the simple fact that it's going to likely cost me money if you go flying through your windshield. And since the government is allowed to take money from all working citizens with or without their permission to deal with stuff like this then yes I absolutely agree they should be allowed to mandate things like wear your seatbelt while driving. The problem is I care just as much about having to pay taxes to fund your medical bills if you go flying through your windshield or if you go flying over your handlebars through someone elses windshield. But I have no say so in any of that.

    But as far as an actual unnecessary law that is freedom limiting? Marijuana being illegal. Why don't I have the freedom to sit in my house and smoke weed? It's not bothering anybody.
     
  24. Curious Always

    Curious Always Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2016
    Messages:
    16,924
    Likes Received:
    13,462
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    My nerd and I both have our medical cards, now.

    MJ being made illegal in the first place is a crime. That made criminals out of people who otherwise would be adults contributing to society.

    I'm never going to get over being mad about that. THAT'S a freedom killer.

    I've been clear about laws though.

    If it costs nothing, saves money and inconveniences nobody, there's no reason to keep it from being law. It's all win; no downside.
     
    Last edited: Dec 30, 2020
    bringiton likes this.
  25. Nightmare515

    Nightmare515 Ragin' Cajun Staff Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,132
    Likes Received:
    4,899
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I agree with you for the most part. I was merely mostly playing devils advocate throughout this discussion to show why virtually any law we come up with can go down a rabbit hole. Which ones we as a society choose to accept are largely based on the personal sentiments of people within society. Well outside of blatant things like rape and murder and whatnot.

    I bolded this part because I do have to point out this isn't an absolute but I get what you are trying to say in the general sense. Just because something meets those criteria doesn't mean we should make it law. In the case of seatbelts it makes sense but in other cases it doesn't. "Inconvenience" is a subjective term and based on what you are talking about in particular it can also go down a rabbit hole pretty quickly. The level of inconvenient is also subjective. Yes there are plenty of things I think are inconvenient and dumb and there are plenty of situations where I'd call someone else dumb for believing something is inconvenient. But I am not the arbiter of truth or morality I simply have my own opinions about things. There are plenty of things I believe are necessary that others will think are dumb.

    The reality is that most things don't actually bother me. I really do fall into the camp of I couldn't care less what anybody does as long as it doesn't personally effect me in a REASONABLE capacity. As in you aren't in my yard with it or it's something I have to personally get up and go deal with. As we speak right now somebody around here is firing off guns for New Years. They've been at it for about an hour. It's flat out illegal to discharge a firearm within these town limits but I'm not going to call the cops because I don't care, it's not bothering me, and I don't think that should even be a law anyway. I'll argue things from an argumentative standpoint but in reality there are very few laws that I actually care about. I'm going to pay taxes anyway regardless so whether that money goes to somebody getting launched through their windshield for refusing to wear a seatbelt or somebody mooching off the government for refusing to get a job I don't care. It's not like our government will magically give me my money back if they fixed all these things.
     

Share This Page