Can you be a small government conservative, and let people do their own thing? - Page 2

JoeTheJuggler · 26th March 2010, 12:11 PM

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

It starts by not confusing "small government" with "no government".

How many military bases does the U.S. have around the world? And this is somehow compatible with "small government"?

ETA: And are nations with no military bases outside their own borders government-less?

Richard Masters · 26th March 2010, 12:16 PM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Intruding into the lives of people in other countries? meh, whatever.

To be honest, it's rare to hear about libertarians wanting to intrude in the lives of people in other countries.

Drewbot · 26th March 2010, 12:20 PM

You can have a big-intrusive government, with a small millitary, and depend on others for your protection, and stability.

Or you can have a large military, and a small-non-intrusive government, and do what is necessary to protect your citizens and interests. If you take into consideration the potential costs of another terrorist attack, then investing in a large, deterring military, may be cheaper than bearing the cost of attacks on your soil.

JoeTheJuggler · 26th March 2010, 12:28 PM

Originally Posted by Drewbot

You can have a big-intrusive government, with a small millitary, and depend on others for your protection, and stability.

Or you can have a large military, and a small-non-intrusive government,

You're just begging the question.

I agree with Upchurch that exempting massively humongously huge military spending from the definition of "big government" is special pleading.

JoeTheJuggler · 26th March 2010, 12:29 PM

Originally Posted by Richard Masters

To be honest, it's rare to hear about libertarians wanting to intrude in the lives of people in other countries.

It's also rare to hear them object to intrusions into the lives of people in other countries. (See above--military bases on foreign soil surely is intrusion into the lives of people in other countries.)

Sword_Of_Truth · 26th March 2010, 12:54 PM

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

You're just begging the question.

I agree with Upchurch that exempting massively humongously huge military spending from the definition of "big government" is special pleading.

A government needs to hire enough firefighters to keep its cities from burning down. How many is enough is dictated by the size and quantity of fires that you face, not by your political philosophy.

The same goes for soldiers. You need enough to keep the other side from wanting to fight or win if they do.

Richard Masters · 26th March 2010, 12:57 PM

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

It's also rare to hear them object to intrusions into the lives of people in other countries. (See above--military bases on foreign soil surely is intrusion into the lives of people in other countries.)

But libertarians usually (and by usually, I mean pretty much always) object to military bases on foreign soil.

Drewbot · 26th March 2010, 01:23 PM

The ideal government would need a military force necessary to protect it's citizens and interests. And also large enough to deter potential enemies, and provide security to nations who's only security may be the presence of our welcomed military. In other words, our presence in other countries would be a deterrent to an aggressor. Not because of that force's strength but because of the danger of attacking through our force.

Domestically and economically the government would be small and non-intrusive. Militarily the government would be strong enough to ensure peace through strength.

JoeTheJuggler · 26th March 2010, 01:37 PM

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

A government needs to hire enough firefighters to keep its cities from burning down. How many is enough is dictated by the size and quantity of fires that you face, not by your political philosophy.

The same goes for soldiers. You need enough to keep the other side from wanting to fight or win if they do.

That's not true.

You could have a country where firefighting and even policing were done by the free market or even smaller governmental levels.

And having a sufficient military "to keep the other side from wanting to fight" is one thing, and having a gigantic, humongous military is something else. It was hard even to trim from the budget hardware the Pentagon doesn't want or need.

________

Originally Posted by Richard Masters

But libertarians usually (and by usually, I mean pretty much always) object to military bases on foreign soil.

I've never heard any of them doing so. I've never heard any of them objecting to military spending at all.

I'm not saying I don't believe you, but that I sincerely have never heard libertarians saying those things. I have heard arguments like the one Sword of Truth just made--that for some reason the size of the military budget is exempt from the definition of "big government". ETA: And Drewbot's assertion that big military shouldn't count, but big spending for social welfare (dare I say "social security"?) should.

JoeTheJuggler · 26th March 2010, 01:40 PM

Originally Posted by Drewbot

The ideal government would need a military force necessary to protect it's citizens and interests. And also large enough to deter potential enemies, and provide security to nations who's only security may be the presence of our welcomed military. In other words, our presence in other countries would be a deterrent to an aggressor. Not because of that force's strength but because of the danger of attacking through our force.

Domestically and economically the government would be small and non-intrusive. Militarily the government would be strong enough to ensure peace through strength.

Again, this is just a restatement of your position.

Any support for why big military doesn't count in the definition of big government? (All you're saying here is that it shouldn't.)

Richard Masters · 26th March 2010, 02:26 PM

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

I've never heard any of them doing so. I've never heard any of them objecting to military spending at all.

I'm not saying I don't believe you, but that I sincerely have never heard libertarians saying those things. I have heard arguments like the one Sword of Truth just made--that for some reason the size of the military budget is exempt from the definition of "big government". ETA: And Drewbot's assertion that big military shouldn't count, but big spending for social welfare (dare I say "social security"?) should.

That's fine. See the following.

End wars to fund health care

Originally Posted by The Raw Story

And to finance health reform, Paul would like to see the US end its overseas military engagements. “I would cut from overseas spending, I would cut from these trillions and trillions of dollars that we have spent over the years and bring our troops home so that we can finance it [health care].”

Iamme · 26th March 2010, 05:37 PM

Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto

Why? Why not Health Care?

Oh, oh. Can't you see a never ending list of entitlements coming?

Iamme · 26th March 2010, 05:49 PM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

How does military spending fit into this small government conservatism?

Well, we do need a military. We all know that. Someone with no particular (corporate) interests at stake needs to defend this country. The size and/or how pricey, can be debated. If we had to choose of all gov't offices and programs out there, all should take a back seat to the military, IMO.

Does anyone think that making treaties to shrink the nuclear warheads (like we just did with Russia), is the way we should be heading? (Or should this be a new thread?) Can you imagine two parties saying they plan on committing suicide together? And the one party says to the other that as soon as YOU commit suicide, I will? And they do the count down thing...one, two ,three,...and then only one bang.

psychictv · 26th March 2010, 06:45 PM

Originally Posted by Iamme

Well, we do need a military. We all know that.

Do we? Why? Surely powerful corporations in the U.S. have a vested interest in protecting their infrastructure. Why not privatize the military and let them pay for their own security? If the free market really works, a private military force would presumably be cheaper, better, more innovative, and more flexible.

26th March 2010, 12:11 PM	#41
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 26,819	Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth It starts by not confusing "small government" with "no government". How many military bases does the U.S. have around the world? And this is somehow compatible with "small government"? ETA: And are nations with no military bases outside their own borders government-less?
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons Last edited by JoeTheJuggler; 26th March 2010 at 12:12 PM.

26th March 2010, 12:20 PM	#43
Drewbot Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 3,846	You can have a big-intrusive government, with a small millitary, and depend on others for your protection, and stability. Or you can have a large military, and a small-non-intrusive government, and do what is necessary to protect your citizens and interests. If you take into consideration the potential costs of another terrorist attack, then investing in a large, deterring military, may be cheaper than bearing the cost of attacks on your soil.
Drewbot Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 3,846	__________________ "I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker "I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325 Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic

26th March 2010, 12:28 PM	#44
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 26,819	Originally Posted by Drewbot You can have a big-intrusive government, with a small millitary, and depend on others for your protection, and stability. Or you can have a large military, and a small-non-intrusive government, You're just begging the question. I agree with Upchurch that exempting massively humongously huge military spending from the definition of "big government" is special pleading.
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons

26th March 2010, 12:29 PM	#45
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 26,819	Originally Posted by Richard Masters To be honest, it's rare to hear about libertarians wanting to intrude in the lives of people in other countries. It's also rare to hear them object to intrusions into the lives of people in other countries. (See above--military bases on foreign soil surely is intrusion into the lives of people in other countries.)
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons

26th March 2010, 01:23 PM	#48
Drewbot Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 3,846	The ideal government would need a military force necessary to protect it's citizens and interests. And also large enough to deter potential enemies, and provide security to nations who's only security may be the presence of our welcomed military. In other words, our presence in other countries would be a deterrent to an aggressor. Not because of that force's strength but because of the danger of attacking through our force. Domestically and economically the government would be small and non-intrusive. Militarily the government would be strong enough to ensure peace through strength.
Drewbot Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 3,846	__________________ "I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker "I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325 Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic

26th March 2010, 12:16 PM	#42
Richard Masters Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 3,030	Originally Posted by Upchurch Intruding into the lives of people in other countries? meh, whatever. To be honest, it's rare to hear about libertarians wanting to intrude in the lives of people in other countries.

26th March 2010, 12:54 PM	#46
Sword_Of_Truth Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 11,497	Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler You're just begging the question. I agree with Upchurch that exempting massively humongously huge military spending from the definition of "big government" is special pleading. A government needs to hire enough firefighters to keep its cities from burning down. How many is enough is dictated by the size and quantity of fires that you face, not by your political philosophy. The same goes for soldiers. You need enough to keep the other side from wanting to fight or win if they do.

26th March 2010, 12:57 PM	#47
Richard Masters Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 3,030	Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler It's also rare to hear them object to intrusions into the lives of people in other countries. (See above--military bases on foreign soil surely is intrusion into the lives of people in other countries.) But libertarians usually (and by usually, I mean pretty much always) object to military bases on foreign soil.

26th March 2010, 01:37 PM	#49
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 26,819	Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth A government needs to hire enough firefighters to keep its cities from burning down. How many is enough is dictated by the size and quantity of fires that you face, not by your political philosophy. The same goes for soldiers. You need enough to keep the other side from wanting to fight or win if they do. That's not true. You could have a country where firefighting and even policing were done by the free market or even smaller governmental levels. And having a sufficient military "to keep the other side from wanting to fight" is one thing, and having a gigantic, humongous military is something else. It was hard even to trim from the budget hardware the Pentagon doesn't want or need. ________ Originally Posted by Richard Masters But libertarians usually (and by usually, I mean pretty much always) object to military bases on foreign soil. I've never heard any of them doing so. I've never heard any of them objecting to military spending at all. I'm not saying I don't believe you, but that I sincerely have never heard libertarians saying those things. I have heard arguments like the one Sword of Truth just made--that for some reason the size of the military budget is exempt from the definition of "big government". ETA: And Drewbot's assertion that big military shouldn't count, but big spending for social welfare (dare I say "social security"?) should.
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons Last edited by JoeTheJuggler; 26th March 2010 at 01:41 PM.

26th March 2010, 01:40 PM	#50
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 26,819	Originally Posted by Drewbot The ideal government would need a military force necessary to protect it's citizens and interests. And also large enough to deter potential enemies, and provide security to nations who's only security may be the presence of our welcomed military. In other words, our presence in other countries would be a deterrent to an aggressor. Not because of that force's strength but because of the danger of attacking through our force. Domestically and economically the government would be small and non-intrusive. Militarily the government would be strong enough to ensure peace through strength. Again, this is just a restatement of your position. Any support for why big military doesn't count in the definition of big government? (All you're saying here is that it shouldn't.)
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons

26th March 2010, 02:26 PM	#51
Richard Masters Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 3,030	Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler I've never heard any of them doing so. I've never heard any of them objecting to military spending at all. I'm not saying I don't believe you, but that I sincerely have never heard libertarians saying those things. I have heard arguments like the one Sword of Truth just made--that for some reason the size of the military budget is exempt from the definition of "big government". ETA: And Drewbot's assertion that big military shouldn't count, but big spending for social welfare (dare I say "social security"?) should. That's fine. See the following. End wars to fund health care Originally Posted by The Raw Story And to finance health reform, Paul would like to see the US end its overseas military engagements. “I would cut from overseas spending, I would cut from these trillions and trillions of dollars that we have spent over the years and bring our troops home so that we can finance it [health care].”

26th March 2010, 05:37 PM	#52
Iamme Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Western Wisconsin Posts: 4,622	Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto Why? Why not Health Care? Oh, oh. Can't you see a never ending list of entitlements coming?
	__________________ I lost my mind many years ago and it hasn't affected me a bit...a bit..a bit..a bit.

26th March 2010, 05:49 PM	#53
Iamme Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Western Wisconsin Posts: 4,622	Originally Posted by Upchurch How does military spending fit into this small government conservatism? Well, we do need a military. We all know that. Someone with no particular (corporate) interests at stake needs to defend this country. The size and/or how pricey, can be debated. If we had to choose of all gov't offices and programs out there, all should take a back seat to the military, IMO. Does anyone think that making treaties to shrink the nuclear warheads (like we just did with Russia), is the way we should be heading? (Or should this be a new thread?) Can you imagine two parties saying they plan on committing suicide together? And the one party says to the other that as soon as YOU commit suicide, I will? And they do the count down thing...one, two ,three,...and then only one bang.
	__________________ I lost my mind many years ago and it hasn't affected me a bit...a bit..a bit..a bit.

26th March 2010, 06:45 PM	#54
psychictv Muse Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 535	Originally Posted by Iamme Well, we do need a military. We all know that. Do we? Why? Surely powerful corporations in the U.S. have a vested interest in protecting their infrastructure. Why not privatize the military and let them pay for their own security? If the free market really works, a private military force would presumably be cheaper, better, more innovative, and more flexible.
psychictv Muse Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 535	Last edited by psychictv; 26th March 2010 at 06:46 PM.