[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Did I say we let it grind away? The only way we can change it is by continuing to work. The concept of smaller govt., fewer taxes is all good - you got any ideas on how to make it work? I mean real, practical means?

I know a lot of ideas have been thrown out, and discussed. Straightening out the tax code, along the lines of Slinging Sammy's comments. A moratorium for 3 years on new defense spending, a reduction in the Army recruiting by 3-5% per year, and a corresponding redefinition of Army goals, including reducing overseas commitments. A freeze, on social security/health care benefits, again for the next 3 years. All these simply take political will - therefore they won't happen. Further(and more pie in the sky), 12 year term limits for all of congress, - if a president can be up to snuff on all the intricacies and serve only 8 years, I believe new congressmen can manage as well. Re-affirm Article 10 of the bill of rights, by removing, or restricting the use of federal funds as a club to force States to implement "the good of all" type legislation.
Finally, some serious Constitutional changes - take Senators out of the public vote, and back to being appointed by the individual States. If a state chooses to hold elections fine, but the Senate was designed to be a check on pure democracy tendencies.

We ain't Rome, Rome wasn't a democracy and at its height the Roman Empire was approximately 1/10 of our population. As you said in one of your earlier posts, the need is not yet dire and we can change if we can find the political will. But I agree, I am not sure we will.

A brief, but good read on the Roman Republic from Wikipedia:
Roman Republic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Roman Republic was the phase of the ancient Roman civilization characterised by a republican form of government. It began with the overthrow of the Roman monarchy, c. 509 BC, and lasted 482 years until its subversion, through a series of civil wars, into the Principate form of government and the Imperial period.

The Roman Republic was governed by a complex constitution, which centred on the principles of a separation of powers and checks and balances. The evolution of the constitution was heavily influenced by the struggle between the aristocracy (the patricians), and other Romans who were not from famous families, the plebeians. Early in its history, the republic was controlled by an aristocracy of individuals who could trace their ancestry back to the early history of the kingdom. Over time, the laws that allowed these individuals to dominate the government were repealed, and the result was the emergence of a new aristocracy which depended on the structure of society, rather than the law, to maintain its dominance.

I could easily change a few terms and make this fit for the US governmental structure. This form existed for 482 years, we are at almost half that. But, as you correctly pointed out, this form of government wasn't even managing 1/10 of the population, and I tend to believe the increased scale could possibly increase the speed of the decline to an imperial form of government. I bolded the one line because that strikes me as the phase we are entering, where the structure of society (healthcare, social engineering, and social security) are beginning to override legal principles of sound government.

So, no we are not Rome, but we could learn ALOT from their historic example.

My only point with Oakland was a response to TTE assertion that our govt. is "shitty". To me, it's all a matter of perspective. Is it bad compared to the ideal? yup. Is it better than any of the alternatives currently out there? yup. Should we be satisfied with it? Nope. But you "Govt. is innately evil" types just don't get that.

Well fair enough, I just don't get that we should accept a poor gov't just because it is what we have. Yes it is better than the worst governments out there, truthfully, so was the English Monarchy when the founding fathers revolted against it. And more important, and what you "gov't is innately neutral" types don't get, is that there is an inertia within gov't which seeks to preserve its position within society and increase its own power. The founding fathers to some degree understood that, George Washington specifically understood that a permanent president was bad for the country. So is a Senate where a 94 year old can hold power and sway for 30+ years, and develop the necessary payouts to his/her constituents to ensure his/her continued re-election. NO ONE argues that gov't is not necessary, if anarchy were to arise, a central(and most likely bad) power would certainly and quickly fill that void. But likewise, gov't is not neutral. It is a power based position, and by definition, every person involved in it, wants the power to control what others do. Thus it should be limited, and restrained. Right now, we don't have that because the two parties have developed a natural block against anything that threatens their status quo.

Feeling a little paranoid? You may be right. I doubt it. In America, I suspect that the freedom of speech is greater than it has ever been.

I have and always will be paranoid , but as they say, just because I am paranoid doesn't mean someone's not looking at me.
I agree that at this moment in time freedom of speech is well guarded, but it also is something that can disappear fairly quickly if a gov't that has big guns decides it doesn't like it.

Look, bottom line, as 12th said - I agree with the cut spending live w/in our means objective. As you say, the problem is finding the political will to cut something. Attacking govt. for govt. sake, however, is simply wrong headed. Despite what the rhetoric from the Tea Party, govt. is not innately "bad" it simply is and it is what we let it be.

Well who is it that does not have the political will to cut "something"? I would argue it is the established politicians and government bureaucracy that so firmly believes in it's own pre-eminence that it thinks that States and people could not somehow manage without the Federal government dictating. Gov't is innately power motivated. Can power be used for good? obviously, but human history has shown that it just as often, or more often, is not.