Do you believe that our founding fathers thought a bigger government is a better government?

I think they were more concerned about whether or not the Government worked than what size it was. I, and I believe they as well, don’t give a whit what size it ends up being. That isn’t relevant or important. I only care that it works for everyone.

Only time will tell. Nothing is static. The US can’t be run as it was in the early 1800’s, and the founding fathers would have a hard time running the government today. So it doesn’t really matter what the founding fathers would think about the government today. What matters is what the current president can do, and if it works. A stronger government might be needed in these times, maybe not. One thing is clear. What matters most is if common people live in tents or not in the richest land in the world. If they have education, health-care and jobs. How to get there is of no big importance.

@The_unconservative_one Gov. has never been efficient. More gov. makes me worry about more inefficiency.

@oratio So any means justify the end? That’s not a great philosophy.

You cant possibly mean that the market is efficient to take care of human rights and peoples basic needs. Then they can “Black Water” all of it, why don’t they.

They certainly thought it was better than the Articles of Confederation.

@oratio The market, of course, will not do anything for human rights.

@Ivan Really?

@Russell_D_SpacePoet the advent of Keynesian economic theory pretty much relegated classical economics to the status of dinosaur back in the 1930’s. It was proven to be incorrect in its assumption that the markets will self correct, and that they could be trusted for everything. The typical conservative/republican argument of “small government” and laissez faire economic policies have been discredited since the 30’s . Yet for the life of me, I can’t understand why they continue to spout that nonsense.

Pondering what the founding fathers would think, is quite unproductive, and a guessing game. That could be anything, as it often is. There are quite many people who believe for some reason that the US was founded on christian faith as a christian country. It was quite the opposite. So a guessing game is just a guessing game and will only produce what you want it to say.

@oratio Correct! Not only is it impossible to know what they would think today, it’s completely irrelevant and a waste of time.

@oratio Just wondering out loud more or less. Some people take curiosity the wrong way.

@Russell_D_SpacePoet I wasn’t knocking the question I was just saying that in general it’s a waste of time. I think its a good question actually.

I apologize if you feel uncomfortable with my answers. It’s not my intention.

I mean that It would be interesting in a scientific of historical sense to hear what they had to say, but it’s doubtful they would comprehend the complexity of the world of today. The US is the most complex economic system of today, all of the world included.

@The_unconservative_one All of these drastic changes don’t worry you in the least?

@Russell_D_SpacePoet No. I think most of them are long overdue. It’s like, if you don’t service your car regularly until it’s on the verge of a total breakdown. A new mechanic comes in and tells you that you need a ton of work on it, are you going to say that it’s too much to do at once, or are you going to say, “Hey man, fix it.”

@oratio No worries. It takes a lot more than the exchanges here to make me uncomfortable. I came here from wis.dm and this site is quite a bit tamer than wis.dm.So I have thick skin. I like a debate and I like to hear other peoples opinions.

I really don’t know. The US and EU have really different opinions on how to meet the crisis. But the situation is worse in the US, and the systems works differently, so it’s not strange if different measures are taken to battle the problems. But if I feel that the US governments take on the crisis is threatening the future of the US, the answer is no,

@Russell_D_SpacePoet I like this much better than wis.dm. trolls like that guy from Hawaii don’t last here. They (fluther mods) don’t stand for the bullshit.

@The_unconservative_one Ahhh…Censorship. Bittersweet it is.

@Russell_D_SpacePoet you call it censorship, I call it maintaining a pleasant, troll free site that people actually enjoy debating topics with reasonable people on. Something that team wis.dm had no clue about.

@oratio I don’t know either. Any decisions made with respect to a country can threaten it’s future though. If the wrong decision is made.

@The_unconservative_one I agree there has to be some controls. Some of shell’s stuff was total BS.

I guess O gets some lurve for good intentions in any case. Well see. But something has to be done, its not a time for second guessing.

Anarchy on this kind of site doesn’t work.

I don’t think the Founding Fathers, in their wildest dreams, had any idea about the modern size, population or geography, of the US. They had a population in 1750 of just over 1 mil. We are at 340mil today. That was half the size of the entire world in 1750. Can you imagine 300Xgrowth in 200 years to a population of 102 bil Americans?

To expand on @oratio‘s point, which, if he hadn’t said it, I would have, I wonder why people care so much about trying to read the minds of people long dead? Clearly it’s an appeal to authority, and part of the canonization, if not deification of these iconic figures in American history.

However, anyone can play that game, and insist that they meant this or that. It’s reading tea leaves, same as interpreting the Bible.

If you want to have a discussion of the merits of various sizes of government (assuming you can define government, and “big”), then why not ask directly? Why bring historical figures into it? This is the same mistake that leads to people using the Bible as a way to determine how to relate to computers. I don’t even know if people in the time of the Founding Fathers could even have imagined computers.

Every year is a new year. It is a new year of incredible change. People last year really don’t have much useful for us this year. We are the experts on our time in a way that no one in the past can possibly be.

@daloon It was a question to provoke thought. I mention the founding fathers because I truly wonder what they would think.

@Russell_D_SpacePoet: to provoke what kind of thoughts? You could have expressed in the details that you were more interested in guessing what the FF’s thought, than in dealing with the issue you brought up.

@daloon I have no problem dealing with the issue of a bigger gov. In my opinion a bigger gov. is no better than a smaller one if it is no more efficient than the latter. I am leery of the depth of involvement the gov. is now intent on having with banks, car companies. etc. It is still too early to tell how the measures taken will pan out. I am afraid for my grand kids inheriting a super deficit if plans don’t work. I have no “blind” faith in ANY gov. No matter what party is involved.

@Russell_D_SpacePoet—I get that (your opinion about size of govt). But, out of curiousity, what did you expect people to do with the FF thinking? I don’t mean this to be flip, but were we supposed to stare into our crystal balls? Conduct a seance?

I suppose you could have asked for a scholarly discussion of their writings, but even then, to extrapolate to their thoughts is quite a stretch. So I guess I still don’t understand what you were trying to get at.

Our Founding Fathers believed that leeches were Tylenol Extra-Strength Gel Tabs. They were the leading movers, shakers, and thinkers of their time. The entire reason they set governmental system up the way they did is because they realized this. remember: great thinkers

They knew that shit changes. Hell, we had a new country about to form. That’s why the Constitution has amendments.

What they didn’t count on is the apathetic laziness that can take over a population that has it too easy for too long. We beat the Constitution like a dead horse as precedent, and therefore untouchable. This is not what George, Tom, Benjamin, Alexander, John, and the rest of the “Pat” pack intended.

@daloon I just think some of the reasons we declared our independence in the beginnings of this country were because of an overbearing gov. FF must of thought they were.

@Blondesjon So, we’ve had it easy too long? I don’t know about you, but I had to pull my own self up by my boot straps. Never collected unemployment or welfare of any sort. So I guess that could be considered easy by some. I missed the easy part. The Constitution means nothing to you?

@Russell_D_SpacePoet…We all have a heart wrenching story my friend but compared to a lot of other locales on the planet we have had it very easy. If you did pull yourself up by your bootstraps and made your way then you are the American dream. Congratulations.

The Constitution means everything to me. I just hate that the Constitution is perceived as set in stone (which it was never meant to be) when it is actually a very malleable document.

The way we interpret the Constitution in this day and age would have our forefathers rending their powder wigs and wearing sackcloth.

@Blondesjon I agree. Compared to third world countries we all have it easy here in the states. I look at the Constitution as a living document. Adjustments are necessary from time to time. The core values shouldn’t be compromised though.

@Russell_D_SpacePoet…Well put. I don’t think the Constitution is about core values though. I think it is about core freedoms.

people’s interpretation of values always lead to trouble

@Blondesjon I value my freedom.. ;) Core freedoms is more correct, but in the same vein I was referring to.

I agree that our founding fathers didn’t have big government in mind. Many of our rights were written to protect ourselves from allowing the government to gain too much power. Debatably, the second amendment allows us to bear arms for just such a case. And I think everyone agrees that the first amendment is put in place to secure freedoms so we don’t turn into North Korea. The more government control, the less freedoms are realized. Like wiretapping us (thanks, Bush admin.) and giving the government the right to spy on your business for any reason (thanks Obama admin.)

Read this, and watch the video. Its incredible…not in a good way. Fuck the government, man. Fuck them. If the lawmakers and law enforcement don’t even know the laws, why do we need them (the laws or the officials)?

This is ridiculous.

@ubersiren The video does not surprise me at all. I’ve seen and heard other horror stories very similar to this. You are right about the second amendment also. Our FF knew we need to be able to protect ourselves from gov. after the dealings with Britain.

I don’t know how you guys can read the 2nd Amendment and come up with that back assward conclusion. As I have pointed out in other discussions, the 2nd Amendment refers to protection FOR the state not protection FROM the state!!

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

nocessary to the security OF A FREE STATE-fairly simple English. Sheesh

I have never seen the logic of that. In the light of the conditions of the 1800’s America, sure, it makes sense. But in what sense does carrying sidearms in 2009 America protect you from a corrupt or oppressing government? How does it do anything but enable people who should not have weapons, to get one and use it? For what reason should it be legal for ANYONE to have a gun besides police and military?

There are few countries that has as much gun violence as the US. If getting a gun is not an option, using one is not possible. Instead of reasoning about the necessities of having a gun maybe one should do something about the reasons behind advocating it. More weapons is not a good option, if you don’t want people to use them. More weapons do not provide security, it makes volatile situations explosive.

@galileogirl [T]he people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed..

Who we can defend ourselves from is not defined. It says what it says. We have the right to defend ourselves. It doesn’t say we have the right to defend ourselves from everyone but the government. If it does, I missed it.

@oratio You are naive if you think just because there are laws against guns that they keep people from getting them. In that scenario you just end up with the criminals and cops with guns. The laws just keep guns out of honest persons hands. Criminals that use guns don’t care about the law. [T]he people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed..

Advocating that you have the right to bare arms yourself for general personal protection because criminals have guns, is accepting that the criminals have guns in the first place, and this attitude is the very reason you have guns available to everyone, including the people you want to protect yourself from. I accept that different cultures work in different ways. But the logic of making guns available everyone to protect themselves is making sure they will be used.

@oratio To each their own. I prefer to be able to defend myself while waiting on the police to arrive. In case of a home invasion, the police would not arrive in time. I want the ability to protect my family in that case. You can look at it as you like. Take guns from normal folks. Good folks, then the criminals have the advantage. In a perfect world, no one would need guns. As soon as they get rid of all the violent criminals, I’ll turn my guns in. I don’t see it happening though. By the way…The criminals do have guns. That’s the way it is. No, I’m not saying ALL criminals carry guns. Many do though.

Maybe. I might have felt the same if I were american. I have yet to meet a person though who didn’t think they were one of the good guys.

Our founding fathers wanted a responsive, controlled government. They said nothing about size but they put checks and balances in to prevent abuse from any branch of government.

Over the years, especially in the last 30 years, the executive branch has grabbed extra power and the congress just rolled over and gave it to them. This year the Supreme court went even further by making corporations officially citizens even foreign corporations operating in this country. No no branch can be honest or work for the citizens. The only way to fix this it to clean all three branches out and start over again.

The primary role of government was to protect the commons and insure that the citizens had maximum freedom. Now we have the commons (highways, prisons, military, even parks) privatized and owned by corporate giants. We voted away and sold our country to the lowest bidders and are in the process of becoming just another banana republic

@Ron_C I have to agree with everything you said. The only problem is it is almost impossible to clean up the gov. The people who get elected don’t want to clean it up. Or they made so many deals to get elected that it leaves them ineffective because they owe to many people too many favors.

@Russell_D_SpacePoet ” The only problem is it is almost impossible to clean up the gov. The people who get elected don’t want to clean it up.” So what do we do, give up?

I think that we need a rational tea party type movement. Our agenda should be simple:

1. Insist on legislation for government funded elections.
2. Insist on term limits (even honest people end up corrupted if they stay in office.
3. Insist that both houses get rid of the seniority system for all assignments.
4. Return to the original intent of the constitution and make corporate lobbying illegal.
5. Insist that congress prosecute and punish members for malfeasance in office.
6. Make election day a public holiday or move it to a weekend day.
7. Get rid of voting machines that don’t keep a hard copy vote trail.

@Ron_C Campaign reform, term limits and getting rid of the electoral vote would help. I wish congress would punish it’s members like normal people.

@Russell_D_SpacePoet ” I wish congress would punish it’s members like normal people.” I find it really disgusting when a congressman addresses a person that just lied about him as ” my friend from ________”. It would be better if they just punched eachother or had a sword fight. At least it would be more honest. What happened to the good old days when they would just go outside for a duel?