Isn't it weird that the people who are always about "smaller government"...

[ck4829]

Are almost always the same people who want the government to have the power to kill people with capital punishment, control what substances a person can put in their body, declare a woman's reproductive system to be government property, tell which consenting adults who can and can not get married, etc.?

[Ian David]

1. A government just small enough to fit in your bedroom and your doctor's office.

But not in your company's board room.

[Kerrytravelers]

2. Best summary of the GOPiggies I've seen in a long time.

[BOSSHOG]

3. Yeah but don't forget to keep YOUR government out of THEIR medicare

[Cant trust em]

4. It's the key Republican irony.

As backwards as the Libertarians are, at least they're intellectually honest.

[Hello_Kitty]

6. Yet I've met a surprisingly high number of anti-choice libertarian men. eom

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

22. Define "anti-choice libertarian"?

Nearly every libertarian I know supports the right to abortion.
Most libertarians I know does NOT support government funding paying for the abortion.

Both viewpoints are consistent with libertarian core principles and, despite reprehensibility, neither is "anti-choice".

[Hello_Kitty]

23. Anti-choice libertarian - A person who identifies as libertarian but is anti-choice.

I know several. I know others who think the abortion issue should be left to the states, a ridiculous proposition that implies that women are property.

[JoeyT]

25. You mean the "Rights and liberties

only apply to men." libertarians? I've met a bunch of those myself.
Usually they don't just hate women, though. They hate minorities too. And they're against gay marriage.
I'm not sure how they manage to compartmentalize "The government shouldn't be able to tell anyone what to do: Unless they're women, gay, minorities, pregnant, non-producers, etc."

I suspect a lot of them are just Republicans that fled their sinking ship but hold the exact same beliefs they did as Republicans.

Edited to add: Some of them have pretty screwy ideas about rights, too. e.g. a lot of them will outright say that freedom of association means that business owners in the deep south shouldn't be forced to sell food to minorities. Or should be able to charge higher prices. Different water fountains and bathrooms are ok too, as long as it isn't the government doing it. The invisible hand of the free market will fix all, or something.

[athenasatanjesus]

32. Ive met many pro war libertarians nt

[jmowreader]

5. And that is a huge one...

If they were to manage to criminalize abortion they would need to triple the size of government to do it.

[Bitwit1234]

7. Don't you know why republicans are so fired up for smaller government

they want all those lucretive government services transferred to private organizations. That way their campaign buddies, the ones that supply all the cash, will have more and more and more ways to screw the public out of their money. Next thing you know, they will want to vote on which corporation sits in the white house.

[mac56]

8. Republicans are less troubled by hypocrisy than normal people are.

[proud patriot]

9. a kick for later

[MicaelS]

10. Ahh, but you see.....

It's about PUNISHING the guilty, protecting the INNOCENT, and preventing people from SINNING doncha know? That's the PROPER role of government. :puke: :sarcasm:

[Echo In Light]

11. The authoritarian/fundie mindset favors HUGE police state gov that cracks down on undesirables

[spanone]

12. they want smaller 'democratic government' republican government is alright

these same folks didn't make a wimper when bu$h* was on his drunken eight year spending spree

[LeftinOH]

13. i.e.: "We want smaller government (when we're not in charge)".

[pinto]

14. The disconnect always boggles me.

And they run for a government office on an anti-government platform.

:eyes:

[Edweird]

15. It's all about a smaller *Dem* Government. When RW'ers expand, it's just swell.

[abq e streeter]

16. Absolutely, except from what I've seen re: the "drug war"

where Democrats fall over over each other to be seen as "tough on drugs" as much as repubes. And locally, although our state did finally pass a medicinal marijuana bill with the support of Gov. Richardson, it was a right wing libertarian former governor( then current, but near the end of his second term) who crusaded for legalization, and local Democratic leaders ( including our Lt. Governor, who may very well be our next Gov.) jumped all over him with feigned ( or worse, real) outrage that he could even propose discussion of such a thing. Unfortunately, this is one area where Democrats are generally as bad as repubes in the area of politically expedient hypocrisy. And come to think of it, plenty of Dems are still voting against marriage equality too...

[TxRider]

17. It would be weird of it was true...

I do not find it to be.

Especially with the libertarian set.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

18. I think there is a big difference between "smaller government" and anti-federalist.

I don't believe most people who are for "small government" are talking about "less government"... simply less centralized government. Although you are right... there are always wingnuts and anarchists that haven't evolved since the 18th century.

alot of the fundies I know support states-rights and limited intervention of the federal government into issues which should be controlled by states. Smaller federal government does not necessarily mean fewer government powers. I tend to agree with the anti-federalist stance moreso... that state governments should be the primary public servant to the people and federal government should only exist to organize national defense, interstate commerce, and interstate commonality.

The two competing theories are that one large government reduces the duplication of actions you get with 50 smaller government and increases commonality between states for interstate interaction versus the fact that a large government can never be as efficiently beneficial to a group of citizens like a smaller local government (said otherwise: Big government is slow & inefficient).

[-wulf-]

20. That's it

Most people who refer to "less government" mean less federal government. The States were intended to have the most power over people's day-to-day lives (as far as matters of government are concerned) since in theory they would be better suited to deal with the problems and issues concerning the common people and the citizens of that state, who have more direct influence over the laws that govern them.

This was established as a "fix" to the basic problems that the Colonist had with being Governed by a central entity that was so far removed from the day-to-day life of the common citizen.

If the federal government were smaller in its scope, and stuck to the basic defense and common welfare and yadda yadda, and let the states more freely govern based on the will of its citizens, then if a large enough group of like minded people wanted to live in a much more left or right society, they could move to the state that best suited their desires and mold their local governments in their own fashion, so long as no laws violated federal laws or regulations, and none of the basic liberties or freedoms of the Bill of Rights or Constitution were infringed upon.


The most powerful governments should be those that are more directly controlled by the people they govern, which would be states and other local governments.

If (the citizens of) Idaho want to legalize Marijuana and Kansas wants to ban it, then they should each have the right to act accordingly.

[NightWatcher]

19. my "less government" family member is the first to scream "there outta be a law"

she complains about taxes and government, yet calls the cops when the neighbor plays loud music or refuses to cut a tree that hangs over her fence.

I once asked, "who pays for all these calls to the cops?", "who should enforce all these crazy new laws"

they dont want less laws/government, they just want it to be THEIR government.

[hvn_nbr_2]

21. "Small government" = "Big Lie". De-regulate private life. nt

[KonaKane]

24. not to mention, launch elective trillion dollar wars

They seem to have an open blank checkbook policy when it comes to that crap.

[JoeyT]

26. Not really weird.

Just more of their "Good for me but not for thee." crap.
Only the rights that are important to them matter, and only they're allowed to hold them.

Notice how rapidly we transitioned from "Criticizing the president is treason." to "Waving a loaded automatic rifle in the presence of the president is freedom of speech!". That wasn't an accident. And I guaranfuckingtee you the next time we have a Republican president again, we'll be right back to being free to speak our minds, as long as we only want to say good things about him.

[galileoreloaded]

27. I honestly can't say I have 100% the same experience as you, and I don't know what scares me worse..

I think they mean it............

[bamacrat]

28. Well of course they want a government that tells you what you can and cant do not help you.

Other than defense our helping wing (SS, Medicare, Medicade) is a huge part of our government. Not need to help people, let them invest for themselves and save for when they are old a feeble. The only (not only) flaw in that logic is that like before SS people will not save that extra money each month, they will spend it on things like food, shelter, clothes, transportation etc. Then when they are old the rich people with their hedgefunds will be like ah snap you should have planned ahead. I wish there were some rich people that would stand up and forfeit their Social Security. Bill Gates doesnt need it, Warren Buffett doesnt need it, all these billion dollar athletes dont need it. Would never happen but would be a great gesture. The only person I could see maybe doing it would be people like Brad Pitt, George Clooney, maybe Oprah. Say the average SS check is $1000, or 12,000 a year. and you start getting it at 65 and live to be 85. And there are 237 millionaires in congress that comes out to about $56,880,000. Not a huge amount I know but not bad savings to go to people that really need it, or just to help the system out. There are around 300 American Billionaires, if they all gave it up that would be $72,000,000. SO right there $128,000,000.

Now a little more useless never gonna happen trivia. In 2001 there were 2.2 million Millionaires. So you ready for the number............... $528,000,000,000. So ok some of them will lose it all and need help so take out 28 billion for them. Thats half a Trillion dollars that will be given to people who do not need it. Oh and I know they paid in to the system blah blah blah. If you are that rich $1000/month wont help you or us.

[quaker bill]

29. They don't really want smaller government at all

and never did. They simply don't want any of their tax dollars going to "those people" (define as you wish).

Otherwise, these folks vigorously demand services from government in ways "liberals" would be hard pressed to match. They want a police state (as long as the police stay in and "clean up" impoverished areas). They want the pot-holes fixed, the garbage picked up on time, "offensive" programs and language kept off the air, "their" environment protected (not yours so much), terrorists stopped (without regard to civil liberties lost in the process), zoning and local codes enforced (to protect their property values). There is very little about big government that they do not want, except the expense.

After well more than a decade of experience in local civil law enforcement, I can count on my hands the number of times I have heard from "liberals" demanding better service from government, and have fingers left over. I would have to use the SQL search engine on the database to get a rough estimate of the times I have heard such from "conservatives". The number would surely be well north of 10,000.

They demand government services but simply do not want to pay for anything that benefits "those people".

[raccoon]

30. And those people are after anything from the government THEY can get. nt

[w8liftinglady]

31. they are selfish,smll-minded idiots...I know these people...

the ones who , when their 16 year-old gets pregnant, call their golf buddy,the ob/gyn,to "Take care of things".
The ones who are adamant for THEIR Medicare,while scoffing the mother on Medicaid.
The one who insists on tax breaks while refusing to increase the minimum wage.
Yeah,I know them.

[kctim]

33. It isn't so weird

once a person takes off the blinders and see's that you are speaking of probably 90% of the people.

[Kablooie]

34. it's actually, smaller for ME, bigger for YOU if you don't agree with me.

It's always about selfishness.

[blueworld]

35. Excellent points, & don't forget the gummit "handouts"

I have a friend (acquaintance?) who considers herself a conservative GOP in thought word & deed. We disagree respectfully about politics, but we inevitably disagree. She's smart - really intelligent.

She was born into desperate poverty in GA & abandoned in a shack by her parents while she was a pre-teen. She worked picking vegetables to get by for a while before moving to Atlanta to live with her older brother. She went to night school, got a degree, was widowed young. She got tuition assistance & Social Sec. Death benefit from her husband & for her child.

She created a remarkably successful business from her sweat & savvy & also because she received a "woman's grant" from the government to assist her start-up. What she's created from that is astonishing.

But what she doesn't like about Democrats is their "big government hand-outs" & "entitlements" policies fueled by high taxes. My teeth buzz & my eyes cross...but God bless us, everyone.

[alex456]

36. I think you're mixing Religious conservatives with the rest

While the GOP made a pact with the Christian Right a couple of decades ago, true Republicans want a small FEDERAL government, and all those issues you mentioned voted on in each separate state instead of being mandated by the Federal branches. The Defense of Marriage Act is completely indefensible though - really must be due to the religious values of the Congressmen being more important than their Republican views.

[cascadiance]

37. And they also want smaller numbers of bigger business entities too....

Which defeats their whole sense of logic that "smaller" is better. In reality it is only better if they don't control it, or view that those that they don't favor control it.