I Love Debates

So no kidding, there I was... My political science professor set up this message board for the class to discuss "stuff" that we cover in class and ask questions... your average message board stuff.

"Girl I" had this to say:

I think this is a pretty typical scenerio of most americans. However, I for one would be willing to give up the government help if it meant the government would be out of our daily lives. i feel like the government has invaded its citizens lives with the promise of more help that in the long run just ends up costing us more money by raising taxes.

The professor jumped in with the simple question of "What would you be willing to give up?".

"Girl II" had this to say:

How can anyone say they are willing to give up the government? You would not be in this college, have good quality food and medical drugs, and order in our nation with out the in put of the government. I hate that they seem to hide things from us, butt a little to far into our lives sometimes, and make some laws that i do not agree to but the majority of what they do for everyone in this country is worth it. i will say the government is stupid and that i hate most politicans but i would rather have all of it then live in a world with out it.

*snicker*

I had this to say:

"Girl II",

I find it funny that you only used one sentence to "defend" government while the rest of the time you were talking about things that the government does that you don't like. The problem that exists with the modern day federal government is that it has over-stepped its bounds. Show me where in the Constitution the government was to be made in charge of deciding what medicines come out on our markets. Don't you think people should be responsible enough to take care of that for themselves? Where does it say the federal government is supposed to take care of people (social security, welfare, Medicare)? The government has zero jurisdiction in these areas.

Why do you think we would not have quality food if the government was not involved? Now we're getting into the regulation of economics. Wouldn't you agree that if a certain company's food was bad, people wouldn't buy it? The market would correct itself.

*A note about economics, remember that the colonists used the limitation of their trade as one of the reasons for their break from England.

What order would our nation lack if the (I assume federal) government wasn't as large as it is?

The reason most people do not vote for and believe in the downsizing of the federal government (ie: the Midwestern Voter) is simple. They put their personal comforts before the principles upon which our government system was founded. Who, in their right mind, is going to turn down a cheaper education, as you pointed out? But now we're back at where does the federal government find the authority to do such things?

I don't think its that (some) people want to give up the government all together, but rather they want to reform it to resemble the one described in the Constitution, unlike today's.

Crispy

So "Girl II" replies:

Crispy
It is true I only used one sentence to defend it because my true feelings toward the government does not include trust. But thinking about it and what it does for me shows me that I depend on it more than I would like to so I must accept it. I probably could not survive with out it and doubt many other people could either considering something as simple as drinking water from another country makes us sick due to our water filtration system in the US. The constitution says nothing about medication but if I am correct it also says nothing about inspecting our food that we eat. The constitution doesn't say a lot like it says nothing about having to provide 13 years of education for the citizens, health care, test to make sure your heath care professionals have the knowledge to take care of you, take care of the roads we use everyday, or anything else we take for granteeded. The constitution is not specific enough to be law it was written to be a guide line for future generations and not a do or die thing.
If a private industraty took care of inspecting the food we eat everyday it would be simple for them to jack up the prices for this service and without this service we cold easily get old food or food crawling with parasites such as tape worm (infected meat), and Trichinella spiralis (pork). Don’t say that if these foods are cooked properly there will be no problem because who said that food has to be cooked a certain way? Who put the laws in that foods must have ingredients label and a nutrition label? Who makes sure the medication that we take has been tested and is safe for people to take and put side affect labels on the drugs? It is true states can do all of that but each state would have different regulations and standards for everything and for now it seems to me the best idea is to have a set of rules, standards and regulations that are more centralized to take care of all of it like maybe the FDA. But why should we? It isn’t in the constitution. The problems that is with the meat can not always be seen, smelled, or tasted by the consumer. We simply buy it in belief it is a good piece of meat. The consumer can’t always tell if their drug is any good. The drug company can just say it is what they want to say it is.
It is true that the colonist broke away from Great Britain for limitations on trade but what is the government limiting on us? The trade with Cuba? No matter how much a dislike the federal government I would be horrified if something happened to it. The reason it has grown is because we as a nation have grown.
Ok. Let’s say that the government is way too big and we all agree that it is what can be done. What will be taken away, what will suffer to make it smaller? Education? Healthcare? DOT? FDA? FBI? NSA? CIA? Law enforcement? Grants? So to reform our “unconstitutional” government what must happen? What will be changed and what must be changed?
A small central government was tried and failed in a manor of years. I learn my history so not to repeat it and right now is not the time in our nation’s history to repeat it a failed experiment.
I want to restate that the constitution is a guide line for our government. It must be interpreted and used as we need it today. How can people over 200 years ago know what we need today to stay strong as a nation?
"Girl II"

To which I blew her out of the water with:

If the food they provided for us was too high priced or was not of good quality, don't you think someone would come along and open up a new company that did provide food of a higher quality and at a better price? It is all about competition for consumers in a free market.

If the FDA was a private organization, I wouldn't have a problem with it. For example, the National Consumers' League that was founded in 1898 "...sponsored a "white label" campaign in which manufacturers who met safety and sanitary standards could put NCL labels on their food and clothing."

Again, I do not see any provision or right for the government to dictate what, where and how I educate my children (if I had any). Why am I, the parent, removed from the decision making process of what I think is important for my son or daughter to learn? I have no problem with schools. They are a great institution. I have a problem when the government steps in and dictates what a school must and must not teach. The public school system is failing (rather, has failed). Just go sit in the mall and look around for 5 minutes if you don't believe me. Pumping more money into the public grade, middle, high school systems is like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. The boat is going down, trying to pretty it up isn't going to help.

As for what should be changed: http://lp.org/issues/platform/execsumm.html That's a summary. The question of what will "suffer" is incorrect. We have become so accustomed to some services that we cannot imagine a world without them. To bring government to the proper size, you cannot simply eliminate one aspect; it would require a total rebuilding of the system.

The small central government that failed many years ago was conceived under the Articles of Confederation and it was also conceived during a time of complete distrust for government.


"How can people over 200 years ago know what we need today to stay strong as a nation?"

Because what we need is based on principles, not emotional reaction to today's issues. Methods should be altered, but principles must never be compromised.

Crispy

P.S. - This is fun. Thanks "Dr. Professor-Teacher-Man"!

In the meantime, "Girl I" said (according to threading in response to "Dr. Professor-Teacher-Man's" comment):

Let me clarify myself. I did not say that there should be no government, nor did I say that I hated the government. However, the government has managed to invade our daily lives, with out us realizing it. we (myself included) just assume it is natural or okay. We have according to The Declaration of Independence have certain rights has human beings guarented to us by our creater Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the Right of the peolple to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government. I would like to ask this question "What form of Government do you think we are supposed to have?" Benjamin Franklin was asked by a man when leaving Indepedence Hall "What form of government have you ( the constructers of the Declaration of Independence) given us?" he replied" we have given you (the citizens) a Republic if you can keep it. but those who would trade their freemdom for security deserve nethier one.

Then "Girl II" piped up:

in what way has the government invaded our privacy may i ask?

Does anyone else hear the artillery whistling in on this comment?

And I said:

The Patriot Act is a great place to start! Declaring legislation regarding homosexual marriages is another decent starter.

Benjamin Franklin was very correct in his answer. Thank you for bringing that up, "Girl II".

Crispy

UPDATE 23FEB @ 1923:
I must also send a thank you to the ever-vigilant WanderingMind for locating the two following links.

I've since added the following:

In my last post, I said, "To bring government to the proper size, you cannot simply eliminate one aspect; it would require a total rebuilding of the system." Well, I found what I was thinking of when I said that. See the following links. Though these two links were written over ten years ago, they still hold true.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/archives/fm/03-91.html
and
http://www.lewrockwell.com/archives/fm/1-92.html

Crispy

UPDATE II 24FEB @ 2025:

With no reply from "Girl II", I decided to pour a little more gasoline into the mix:

And from this week's article:

"Rep. Jo Ann Emerson (R-Mo.), an Appropriations Committee member, gave voice to the GOP's internal opposition in a Jan. 24 form letter to concerned constituents. The letter undercuts the heart of Bush's proposal.

"I cannot support any plan to allow workers to place any portion of their Social Security taxes in risky investments, especially those that depend upon the stock market to appreciate in value," she said in the letter, obtained by the Web log Talking Points Memo. "It remains my opinion that Social Security reform is not necessary at all if Congress would seriously address Medicare reform, balance the budget, erase the trade deficit, and make pension reform a real priority.""

Who is the government to dictate what I do with my money? If you'd like more examples, I've got a few ready to go.

Crispy

Debates Rule.


Debate on, my people. Debate on.

Crispy