Dear small government fans of CC

[BigBallinStalin]

That can't be the only distinction though. The currently stable form, as you've described, is also the popular form because the voters are uninformed and lack the incentives to learn more. I don't see the trade-off between stable government and popular government. It's one and the same, currently.

You're also assuming that a Libertarian executive branch would be so unstable that for some reason we'd have to be concerned about the nuclear weapons because...? (sounds like good fiction!).

[saxitoxin]

BBS makes a good point (he FP'ed me so this is in reply to his first response).

I'd be thrilled if SYRZIA won next week's Greek elections. If their inexperienced young leader becomes PM it could be fun and maybe you'd see a bunch of reforms. If he runs the country into the dirt, oh well, it's a relatively insignificant country in southern Europe. No big loss. They'll have new elections, maybe a military coup or two, and eventually crawl back in 20 or 30 years.

If Greece had 8,000 hydrogen bombs, however, there wouldn't be as much room to try on a bunch of different shoes to see which you liked best. All citizens of all countries are stakeholders in the US government, versus other governments whose stakeholders are usually only the nation's citizens themselves. An institutionalized oligarchy may be the best way of ensuring obligations to all stakeholders are met.

[saxitoxin]

Also, I don't know much about him but I don't think Amash ever claimed he was a libertarian. Small government idealism is compatible with libertarianism, conservatism, anarchism, communism and many other ideologies. Amash seems to be a conservative displaying traits of greater ideological purity than his colleagues, but not a libertarian (lowercase L).

Speaking of the Libertarian Party itself, I'm curious why it's least active in states like New York with fusion voting systems where third parties can actually matter without actually electing anyone.

[LFAW]

As a citizen of the United Kingdom but as a keen follower of US politics let me share my two cents.

The choice in November is simple, either choose a an incumbent which got there through populist slogans, broken promises and a youthful outlook on the world, or alternatively they can vote for a businessman who's economic promises could not only stabilize the US economy but could also pave the way for economic recovery in other countries and institutions such as the EU.

As for the debate over Republicanism vs Conservatism and Libertarianism... It is evident that the Republican party is a broad party in terms of ideology and fundamental beliefs. I agree with Night Strike in that more Conservatives would be a good thing due to their small government mentality and thus allowing the small but strong government to be able to better run Foreign policy and International trade.

[saxitoxin]

That can't be the only distinction though. The currently stable form, as you've described, is also the popular form because the voters are uninformed and lack the incentives to learn more. I don't see the trade-off between stable government and popular government. It's one and the same, currently.

Yes, i guess I'll agree with that. In the (roughly paraphrased) words of Robert Heinlein, "Germany during WWII had a popular government. The German people decided, by inaction, the drawbacks of unseating the Nazis were greater than the benefits of keeping them."

You're also assuming that a Libertarian executive branch would be so unstable that for some reason we'd have to be concerned about the nuclear weapons because...? (sounds like good fiction!).

From my casual observations, pretty much no one with respectable credentials or qualifications is actually involved in a U.S. third party, aside from their presidential candidates, and not always them.

As I said, I think the New York system of fusion elections is the best compromise for third parties to work within the framework of the two government-run major parties as influence groups rather than candidate-focused parties (if it existed in more than a few states).

[BigBallinStalin]

[quote="saxitoxin"]BBS makes a good point (he FP'ed me so this is in reply to his first response).

I'd be thrilled if SYRZIA won next week's Greek elections. If their inexperienced young leader becomes PM it could be fun and maybe you'd see a bunch of reforms. If he runs the country into the dirt, oh well, it's a relatively insignificant country in southern Europe. No big loss. They'll have new elections, maybe a military coup or two, and eventually crawl back in 20 or 30 years.

If Greece had 8,000 hydrogen bombs, however, there wouldn't be as much room to try on a bunch of different shoes to see which you liked best. All citizens of all countries are stakeholders in the US government, versus other governments whose stakeholders are usually only the nation's citizens themselves. An institutionalized oligarchy may be the best way of ensuring obligations to all stakeholders are met.[/quote]

That might be an unfortunate truth; however, I'll remain optimistic. Humanity can do much better if given the opportunities.

[BigBallinStalin]

Also, I don't know much about him but I don't think Amash ever claimed he was a libertarian. Small government idealism is compatible with libertarianism, conservatism, anarchism, communism and many other ideologies. Amash seems to be a conservative displaying traits of greater ideological purity than his colleagues, but not a libertarian (lowercase L).

Speaking of the Libertarian Party itself, I'm curious why it's least active in states like New York with fusion voting systems where third parties can actually matter without actually electing anyone.

New Yorkers tend to dislike Liberty and Freedom?

Honestly, I'm not sure either.

[saxitoxin]

An institutionalized oligarchy may be the best way of ensuring obligations to all stakeholders are met.

That might be an unfortunate truth; however, I'll remain optimistic. Humanity can do much better if given the opportunities.

Just to play devil's advocate, the last 30 years have been mostly free of inter-state conflict, other than wars which the U.S. itself has started. Is the presence of an oligarchical technocratic government in the U.S. - one which exercises various levels of direct and indirect control of governments of Europe, the Americas, Oceania and Asia (other than China) - a safety on the occasional war-resulting mistakes made by the amateur-hour Prime Ministers of all the little countries?

I'm reminded of this scene from the last episode of The Rap News. Or the order of Gen. Klytus in Flash Gordon ... "No one dies in the palace without a command from the Emperor!"

Politicians like Gary Johnson or Ralph Nader are not compatible with the technocratic oligarchy so will always be either sidelined or co-opted (sidelined by relegation to a meaningless third party, or, co-opted by being forced to eventually coalesce into one of the 2 government-run parties and compromise away 90% of their platform [see: Rand Paul]).

[saxitoxin]

To put it another way, a few years ago, the College of William and Mary studied European electoral systems to determine which successfully put extremists into power.

In situations where it is easiest for anyone to freely run for office, an extremist will more likely come to power.



Even the most rhetorically "extremist" Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. - once in power - actually execute policies that are fairly mundane, prototypical, corporate, status-quo and stable in succession (e.g. Barack Obama faithfully carrying out George Bush's agenda) relative to elected European "extremist" politicians who are usually raving lunatics (I have yet to hear an elected member of the U.S. Congress call for a return to a magic-based Pagan warrior society as in the case of elected members of the Greek and Romanian parliaments, or, head an armed party militia as in the case of elected members of the British House of Commons). This has less to do with culture and more to do with the control exercised by the U.S. oligarchy.

[huamulan]

Did you just call American influence a safety guard against 'war-resulting mistakes'?

I'm sure you're familiar with the counter-arguments to this point.

[saxitoxin]

Did you just call American influence a safety guard against 'war-resulting mistakes'?

I'm sure you're familiar with the counter-arguments to this point.

Well, I said to play devil's advocate.

Again, in the words of Gen. Klytus, "No one dies in the palace without a command from the Emperor!" ... but the Emperor commands many people to death.



My only contention is that Europe can allow itself the luxury of "Fun!" votes for extremist politicians because the worst that's going to happen is some country whose name is spelled entirely with consonants will have a few thousand people killed in a civil war. When a country becomes a hegemonic nuclear state, however, it will place a firewall around its political institutions that disallows populist movements or - as a last resort - defuses them by assimilation (see: Pat Buchanan, Rand Paul, etc.). The two government-run parties in the U.S. act as this firewall.

[Phatscotty]

Also, I don't know much about him but I don't think Amash ever claimed he was a libertarian. Small government idealism is compatible with libertarianism, conservatism, anarchism, communism and many other ideologies. Amash seems to be a conservative displaying traits of greater ideological purity than his colleagues, but not a libertarian (lowercase L).

Speaking of the Libertarian Party itself, I'm curious why it's least active in states like New York with fusion voting systems where third parties can actually matter without actually electing anyone.

New York almost did. I can't find or remember that third party candidates name who almost won a house seat, but there was a Tea Party candidate who was leading in the polls until the Republican endorsed the Democrat......

[saxitoxin]

Also, I don't know much about him but I don't think Amash ever claimed he was a libertarian. Small government idealism is compatible with libertarianism, conservatism, anarchism, communism and many other ideologies. Amash seems to be a conservative displaying traits of greater ideological purity than his colleagues, but not a libertarian (lowercase L).

Speaking of the Libertarian Party itself, I'm curious why it's least active in states like New York with fusion voting systems where third parties can actually matter without actually electing anyone.

New York almost did. I can't find or remember that third party candidates name who almost won a house seat, but there was a Tea Party candidate who was leading in the polls until the Republican endorsed the Democrat......

Well, she may have fancied herself a libertarian but she wasn't the Libertarian Party candidate. According to Wikipedia, the Libertarians aren't a legally recognized party in NY.

[thegreekdog]

"Small government fans" should be voting for libertarian Facebook pages.

Quoted for truth.

[thegreekdog]

As a citizen of the United Kingdom but as a keen follower of US politics let me share my two cents.

The choice in November is simple, either choose a an incumbent which got there through populist slogans, broken promises and a youthful outlook on the world, or alternatively they can vote for a businessman who's economic promises could not only stabilize the US economy but could also pave the way for economic recovery in other countries and institutions such as the EU.

As for the debate over Republicanism vs Conservatism and Libertarianism... It is evident that the Republican party is a broad party in terms of ideology and fundamental beliefs. I agree with Night Strike in that more Conservatives would be a good thing due to their small government mentality and thus allowing the small but strong government to be able to better run Foreign policy and International trade.

The issue is whether the Republican Party is really the party of small government. I would argue that it is not. It is the party of big government sometimes.

[Night Strike]

The issue is whether the Republican Party is really the party of small government. I would argue that it is not. It is the party of big government sometimes.

Being the party of "big government sometimes" is better than being the party of "big government all the time (and making it bigger)". The whole goal of getting the Tea Party and libertarians involved in the Republican party is to make sure those "sometimes" becomes "occasionally" then "infrequently" then "never". It would be great to jump straight from sometimes to never, but that is an unrealistic goal to expect. The first task is to change the conversation from "where will we grow" to "where will we cut", and that has mostly become a success. Then the next step is to make sure the people who will actually make cuts are put in office. This is a process because it takes time to undo 100 years of ever-expanding government.

[thegreekdog]

The issue is whether the Republican Party is really the party of small government. I would argue that it is not. It is the party of big government sometimes.

Being the party of "big government sometimes" is better than being the party of "big government all the time (and making it bigger)". The whole goal of getting the Tea Party and libertarians involved in the Republican party is to make sure those "sometimes" becomes "occasionally" then "infrequently" then "never". It would be great to jump straight from sometimes to never, but that is an unrealistic goal to expect. The first task is to change the conversation from "where will we grow" to "where will we cut", and that has mostly become a success. Then the next step is to make sure the people who will actually make cuts are put in office. This is a process because it takes time to undo 100 years of ever-expanding government.

Initially, I don't disagree with you. But there are two things that are at odds with the idea that small government folks will have a transcendant voice in the Republican party:

(1) Social conservatives identify with the Republican party and they are in favor of big government when it comes to social issues. Mitt Romney is not a good example, but social conservatives that identify as small governmenters really want government out of pocket books and into the bedroom. And social conservatives have a large voice in the Republican Party. That was my concern with the Tea Party and why I got out: someone who is a social conservative such that they want the government legislating personal interactions is not a small government person.

(2) I have no proof of this (other than circumstantial evidence that I've provided in other threads), but there is a correlation between getting elected and making the government do something for the people that got you elected. For example, Senator Smith from Pennsylvania, who self-identifies as a small government Republican, will get into office on the power of the natural gas lobby. Once he gets into office, in order to placate his monetary providers and to make sure he gets enough loot to get elected again, will have the government do something to support the natural gas sector. Making the government do something oftentimes results in MORE government, not less. This is more of an institutional problem than the social conservative issue.

[BigBallinStalin]

The issue is whether the Republican Party is really the party of small government. I would argue that it is not. It is the party of big government sometimes.

Being the party of "big government sometimes" is better than being the party of "big government all the time (and making it bigger)". The whole goal of getting the Tea Party and libertarians involved in the Republican party is to make sure those "sometimes" becomes "occasionally" then "infrequently" then "never". It would be great to jump straight from sometimes to never, but that is an unrealistic goal to expect. The first task is to change the conversation from "where will we grow" to "where will we cut", and that has mostly become a success. Then the next step is to make sure the people who will actually make cuts are put in office. This is a process because it takes time to undo 100 years of ever-expanding government.

http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/http:/truthfulpolitics.com/comments/u-s-federal-government-size-as-measured-by-spending-by-president-political-party/


There's another interesting graph which unfortunately I can't find. Whenever either party has full control over congress and the presidency, that party simply spends more than it could otherwise. Both parties do this at about the same amounts.

You see. As far as spending is concerned, these parties don't really vary. It's really a question of which groups will receive the money and which ones won't. It's like this amazing magic trick: I extend two fingers on my left hand and my right hand is closed. I then bump my left hand into my right, which now has two fingers pointing up while the left is closed.


It's interesting that you call the "where will we cut" debate a success. I think Congress over the past 3 years of "debate" have agreed to cut about $50 billion. Big deal. As long as the Republicans continue to support spending for their own groups (e.g. the military), then their goal is hypocritical and insincere.

[Night Strike]

It's interesting that you call the "where will we cut" debate a success. I think Congress over the past 3 years of "debate" have agreed to cut about $50 billion. Big deal. As long as the Republicans continue to support spending for their own groups (e.g. the military), then their goal is hypocritical and insincere.

That's only because the fiscally responsible people do not yet control Congress. They only have influence in part of the House. The goal is to put people in office who will work to cut in all areas, which is a goal that is closer to coming true than it was before the 2010 elections.

(1) Social conservatives identify with the Republican party and they are in favor of big government when it comes to social issues. Mitt Romney is not a good example, but social conservatives that identify as small governmenters really want government out of pocket books and into the bedroom. And social conservatives have a large voice in the Republican Party. That was my concern with the Tea Party and why I got out: someone who is a social conservative such that they want the government legislating personal interactions is not a small government person.

So gay marriage is the only reason you decided to leave the Tea Party? That doesn't make sense. You should be working to focus the message on fiscal issues, not just abandoning everything simply because some people espouse beliefs you don't like. We need to get our fiscal house in order and then we can debate social issues. Besides, the only reason social conservatives identify with the Republican party is because the Democrat party's ideals are completely antithetical to them. Most social conservatives will work with the people who are trying to remake the Republican party into the fiscally responsible party, and even better is that there is no way they'll leave the party to go vote for Democrats. It's a win-win: just focus on putting fiscally responsible people into the party and everything else will fall into place.

[thegreekdog]

So gay marriage is the only reason you decided to leave the Tea Party? That doesn't make sense. You should be working to focus the message on fiscal issues, not just abandoning everything simply because some people espouse beliefs you don't like. We need to get our fiscal house in order and then we can debate social issues. Besides, the only reason social conservatives identify with the Republican party is because the Democrat party's ideals are completely antithetical to them. Most social conservatives will work with the people who are trying to remake the Republican party into the fiscally responsible party, and even better is that there is no way they'll leave the party to go vote for Democrats. It's a win-win: just focus on putting fiscally responsible people into the party and everything else will fall into place.

I left the Tea Party for a few reasons:

(1) Co-opting by mainstream Republicans like what's her name from Minnesota, Sarah Palin, and Rick Santorum. I don't like leeches. And I especially don't like leeches when the host welcomes the leeches so they can get more aitrime.
(2) Co-opting by social conservatives. I'm not sure if this was co-opting or not. There were plenty of social conservatives in my local Tea Party, but not a majority (which was good).
(3) Gay marriage and immigration are two of the issues. The other big ones are foreign wars and privacy. Social conservatives are in favor of restrictions on gay marriage and immigration, want security at the expense of privacy, and want to be involved in foreign wars. When the president gave his state of the union and said he would stop Iran with war if necessary, all the Republicans except Rand Paul stood up... even the Tea Party folks. That's not my idea of smaller government. For what it's worth, I'm more concerned with foreign wars and privacy than I am with gay marriage and immigration (since I think it is inevitable that gay marriage becomes legal and constitutionally protected and because immigration laws don't work anyway).

I do agree that the social conservative Republicans are more likely to work to achieve smaller government in certain areas. One of those is not military spending, which is the biggest or one of the biggest areas that needs cutting.

[Night Strike]

I think that if a strong and vocal leader on the conservative/libertarian side stepped up to outline why cuts are needed in the military and how those cuts will be designed to make us stronger and not weaker, I think most social conservatives will agree with that plan (or at least accept it). Right now, if liberals try to cut the military, it's because they want to weaken our military to supplant it with the UN while still spending that money on entitlements. Most conservatives didn't want to latch on to Ron Paul's military-cutting goals because he said things like "9-11 was our fault" and most saw him as cutting spending to weaken the economy. However, his focus on cutting bases in so many countries that we're no longer warring with or nearby could be accepted if delivered by someone else who didn't hold some other crazy (as seen by conservatives) foreign policy positions.

[thegreekdog]

I think that if a strong and vocal leader on the conservative/libertarian side stepped up to outline why cuts are needed in the military and how those cuts will be designed to make us stronger and not weaker, I think most social conservatives will agree with that plan (or at least accept it). Right now, if liberals try to cut the military, it's because they want to weaken our military to supplant it with the UN while still spending that money on entitlements. Most conservatives didn't want to latch on to Ron Paul's military-cutting goals because he said things like "9-11 was our fault" and most saw him as cutting spending to weaken the economy. However, his focus on cutting bases in so many countries that we're no longer warring with or nearby could be accepted if delivered by someone else who didn't hold some other crazy (as seen by conservatives) foreign policy positions.

The question is why were her foreign policy positions crazy. Were they crazy because they are crazy, or were they crazy because Republican leadership deemed them crazy? Boeing probably didn't give Paul much loot and they probably gave shittons to Romney. Just saying.

I don't think the "cutting bases" thing will ever be accepted by a Republican or Democrat leadership. There are too many businesses and jobs associated with those bases.

[BigBallinStalin]

It's interesting that you call the "where will we cut" debate a success. I think Congress over the past 3 years of "debate" have agreed to cut about $50 billion. Big deal. As long as the Republicans continue to support spending for their own groups (e.g. the military), then their goal is hypocritical and insincere.

That's only because the fiscally responsible people do not yet control Congress. They only have influence in part of the House. The goal is to put people in office who will work to cut in all areas, which is a goal that is closer to coming true than it was before the 2010 elections.

We'll see. I know historic data don't lend certainty to predictions; however, I really doubt we'll see the change you expect. I think that the politicians and bureaucrats will run this into the ground, eventually. It will be a choice between hyperinflation or default.

[saxitoxin]

Most conservatives didn't want to latch on to Ron Paul's military-cutting goals because he said things like "9-11 was our fault"

That's a good point ... Paul lost a lot of traditional GOP support, making up for it with liberal, isolationist and gold money Republicans, independents, Democrats and third partiers. When push-came-to-shove, though, those may have been enough rake in cash and a sense of popular backing but were useless for the GOP nomination.

Now that Paul is in Romney's corner, the independents, Democrats and third partiers will drop off, leaving him to scrap over the same thin slice of pie as everyone else. It was really a masterstroke by the RomneyCare wing of the GOP to stamp out the party insurgency and keep the money flowing and bombs falling.

[Phatscotty]

Most conservatives didn't want to latch on to Ron Paul's military-cutting goals because he said things like "9-11 was our fault"

Oh, Ron Paul did not say it's our fault. He just asks us not to completely ignore the reasons for 9-11, and not to pretend that it was for no reason or the reason that we are rich and free.

I also think more Republicans are realizing that we have spent so much and have so much debt, that it's obvious we are going to have to cut everything. Anyone who thinks we can choose where we are going to cut spending is not up to speed on the issue.