Promoting limited government is a radical position in 2010
Saturday, October 16, 2010 at 01:42PM Just like Jeffersonian limited government was radical in in the 18th century and was resisted by conservatives like Alexander Hamilton from the start, so today in the 21st century it's still a radical idea. Most of the people in the political sphere talking about limited government, or "small" government, are actually talking about tweaks to statism -- a little downsizing and a few efficiency tweaks -- smarter government. I see the consversations all over the internet and on cable news -- when it gets to the nitty gritty, what they really mean is removing a few regulations, reducing taxes a little, cutting spending to prior "reasonable" levels -- levels still much higher than the costs of a limited government.
To truly limit government radical changes will have to take place, and the whole system will have to be redesigned to prevent government from excerising powers which Jeffersonian principles orginally restricted. Republicans have been able to fool the public and libertarians in the past by talking about limited, or "small", government, while really meaning adjustments to a corrupted statist system.
It would be helpful if everyone would say what they mean, and if making adjustments to a statist system is what you mean, then don't say you promote lmited government.
M. Farmer
