Well, look at the history of the United States. Not one of our founders, not even Alexander Hamilton, desired to have the federal government engaging in things like a ponzi scheme that is supposedly an insurance program (what is commonly known as Social Security) or having the federal government control public school curriculum from the Department of Education. Programs like these are blatantly in violation of the Constitution, but are explained away by the nonsense of a "living, breathing Constitution" (which Britain does have and which the Founders clearly did not intend America to have, as they revolted in opposition to that very type of Constitution).
As the history of the United States shows that government will inevitably grow to massive sizes, does this make limited government utopian? If so, then shouldn't everybody be an anarchist so that we don't end up living under somebody like Hitler or Stalin at some point in the future?
2007-11-09 21:38:43 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Hey example for "limited government" exists even today ....
What about Singapore. It runs on "limited" principal.....And it is quite successful in financial terms...
2007-11-17 19:19:33 · answer #1 · answered by Timmi 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Limited government is great, but of course a utopia cannot exist. Anarchy exposes us to the risk of living under a Hitler or Stalin type because they could seize control with no system in place to stop them.
The government's authority should be limited to the power granted by the constitution, just so long as the constitution is taken literally and not interpreted.
2007-11-09 22:41:27 · answer #2 · answered by Dave 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes.
No institution can be trusted to limit itself, except under pressure from more powerful institutions, or from people disassociating from it and/or associating with alternatives.
What can limit the government? It is a coercive and monopolistic institution. It doesn't allow people to leave or to adopt alternatives without its permission (and possibly losing their homes, their freedom, or their lives).
A written constitution can set one part of a state against another part, and slow the growth of the whole, but it can't stop the growth of the whole. Only the people can do that, and when the people can do that, no state can exist.
2007-11-10 12:18:55 · answer #3 · answered by MarjaU 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Limited government cannot exist in a society where people feel that certain entitlements are "fundamental rights". You hear it every day.... "We have a right to free education. We have a right to quality healthcare. We have a right to clean air and water."
No you don't. But as long as you think you do, you'll push your representatives to turn those fallacies into law. Each expansion of benefits (or regulation to ensure quality) requires additional manpower and oversight.... which leads to a huge, bloated, slow government.
As to your second paragraph... No, anarchy is not the answer. Personal accountability is the answer. (Too bad that's a fantasy.) I don't think a dictatorship is the final result of this trend, either. I think that it's more likely that we'll just have an economic collapse due to people who want tons of benefits and "rights", but don't want to pay into the system. We're seeing it already.
2007-11-09 21:45:40 · answer #4 · answered by Marion K 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
It has been shown repeatedly in history that most people when given the choice between liberty and security will choose security. This is as true today as it ever was, so they want social security, safety nets, and protection from terrorist and criminals. Limiting the size of government will never be popular, but limiting its intrusiveness may be possible, because people also want privacy.
2007-11-09 21:56:10 · answer #5 · answered by meg 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes. How are you supposed to keep the state limited to the powers of the constitution when state is given the authority under the constitution to control and limit itself through the Supreme Court? Knowing human nature having want and desire wont this inevitably lead to the endless expansion of the state? Therefore why even give the state the power of force and coercion to begin with, knowing the path this will lead to.
2015-04-10 17:34:15 · answer #6 · answered by Clay 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes , less is more , in this case.
the governments sole job / function is to generate revenue / stay employed . everything they do to is spin to sell us the idea they are protecting us .. but it ends of costing us money.
they are too large of governmetn ... americans have lost control of the government . they control us now. it's not like we could all get together and vote and decide to fire them all / reorganize it / bring in new people.
greed / power / all does corrupt the system .
2007-11-09 21:53:09 · answer #7 · answered by Mildred S 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋