Random Thought on the Scope of Governmental Authority

Dec 2018
3,204
953
New England
#1
I have been debating on social media forums like this off and on for almost 30 years now (yes, pre-Internet, dial-up CompuServe; in my mind I can still hear the modem gurgle), and I have a question for my friends on the left.

Being somewhat of a libertarian, I often argue for government having a relatively smaller footprint. Lower taxes, reduced scope, and less authority of over our day-to-day lives. Over the years there has been no shortage of people chiming in telling me how wrong I was, or how cruel I was, or how selfish I was for having the political opinions I do.

But here we are in 2019, with an absolute raging idiot holding the reins of government in the most powerful country in the world. So I ask you all on the left, now do you get it? Do you now understand why limiting the scope of government is so important? Why checks and balances matter? Why limiting the power government has over our lives is not idle nonsense?

So the next time you think to yourselves "why yes, giving the government more money and more authority sounds like a good way to solve that problem" I'd like you to ask yourself if you're willing to give that new power to the likes of Donald J. Trump or one of his appointees. The powers ceded to government are extremely hard to get back, and sooner or later there's going to be someone with whom you profoundly disagree sitting in the Oval Office and calling the shots.
 
Likes: Sabcat
Dec 2018
1,698
973
Unionville Indiana
#3
It's puzzling when "limited" government conservatives fret over the scope of federal authority while at the same time turning a blind eye to, or supporting, barbarically intrusive state abortion laws passed over the last few years.
 
Likes: Clara007
May 2019
417
72
USA
#4
The amount of power the President should have really isn't the same debate as how much power the government should have. We need to have a much larger house of representatives in order to have meaningful oversight on the day to day operations of government.
 
Dec 2015
17,010
15,943
Arizona
#5
[QUOTE="NatMorton, post: 1369864, member: 8536"

So the next time you think to yourselves "why yes, giving the government more money and more authority sounds like a good way to solve that problem" I'd like you to ask yourself if you're willing to give that new power to the likes of Donald J. Trump or one of his appointees.

What flavor ice cream do you like best? Surely there's something we can agree on...but this statement sounds like a "Please tell me I'm right" post.
There are two subjects here: 1) The U.S. Government which includes 3 separate branches and 2) Donald Trump--NOT the King.
But your statement implies that Trump is our government---our Senate, House, SCOTUS, governors and state legislatures. Trump is ONE man who has too much power. It's happened before and it will happen again. We the people screwed up. Personally, I think the Framers also screwed up.
 
Last edited:
Likes: hoosier88
Dec 2018
3,204
953
New England
#6
It's puzzling when "limited" government conservatives fret over the scope of federal authority while at the same time turning a blind eye to, or supporting, barbarically intrusive state abortion laws passed over the last few years.
Not really, no. I think a rational person would agree among government's proper roles is protecting people from harm. The abortion debate isn't about the scope of government but rather the definition of life and the point at which a human acquires the most basic of human rights: the right not to have their life ended by the actions of another.
 
Dec 2018
1,698
973
Unionville Indiana
#8
Not really, no. I think a rational person would agree among government's proper roles is protecting people from harm. The abortion debate isn't about the scope of government but rather the definition of life and the point at which a human acquires the most basic of human rights: the right not to have their life ended by the actions of another.
Unless you and your allies are prepared to offer an amendment, you're beating a dead horse. It's the only "legitimate" way to achieve your ends now.

Roe v. Wade - Wikipedia
 
Last edited:
Dec 2013
33,811
19,359
Beware of watermelons
#9
I have been debating on social media forums like this off and on for almost 30 years now (yes, pre-Internet, dial-up CompuServe; in my mind I can still hear the modem gurgle), and I have a question for my friends on the left.

Being somewhat of a libertarian, I often argue for government having a relatively smaller footprint. Lower taxes, reduced scope, and less authority of over our day-to-day lives. Over the years there has been no shortage of people chiming in telling me how wrong I was, or how cruel I was, or how selfish I was for having the political opinions I do.

But here we are in 2019, with an absolute raging idiot holding the reins of government in the most powerful country in the world. So I ask you all on the left, now do you get it? Do you now understand why limiting the scope of government is so important? Why checks and balances matter? Why limiting the power government has over our lives is not idle nonsense?

So the next time you think to yourselves "why yes, giving the government more money and more authority sounds like a good way to solve that problem" I'd like you to ask yourself if you're willing to give that new power to the likes of Donald J. Trump or one of his appointees. The powers ceded to government are extremely hard to get back, and sooner or later there's going to be someone with whom you profoundly disagree sitting in the Oval Office and calling the shots.

This was one of the main reasons I pushed for lord Cheeto from the begining. Yeah... it didn't work. Now we have this common argument.

Trump is literally hitler. Give all the guns to Hitler.

SMH
 
Aug 2019
134
16
USA
#10
Not really, no. I think a rational person would agree among government's proper roles is protecting people from harm. The abortion debate isn't about the scope of government but rather the definition of life and the point at which a human acquires the most basic of human rights: the right not to have their life ended by the actions of another.
I try to find something I can agree with, common ground. It is not there.
The government has no business protecting me from myself. Zero. Zip. Nada. Ninguna. Empty set. Null. Void.
The government has no business dictating to me what it believes is harmful to me. It can restrict actions that directly harm society, realizing that has the possibility to be abused. Telling me I may not eat certain foods, not their business.


As to abortion, the point is when does life become a human being. No one denies ova and sperm are alive, that does not make them a human being. No one denies a zygote is alive, not everyone believes it is a human being.it certain lacks most of the characteristics we use to identify a human being.
A human acquires the rights of humanhood the moment it comes into existence. Universal agreement, no dissenters. That solves nothing.
 

Similar Discussions