What is limited government?
Does government being limited mean that only your personal agenda is supported and enforced?
Or does it mean that government is limited to managing the safety of our nation, upholding contracts between parties, enforcing the unbridled dissemination of information to Americans in order to advance and encourage personal responsibility and little else?
If Republicans REALLY uphold limited government, then that limit has to extend even to the strongest of "social issues" that affect them.
Here's why: limited government means government out of all these issues so that free markets, creative and innovative solutions can spring forth where communities can address a list of priorities rather than government becoming the nanny for your specific concern.
Using government to advance your personal agenda is not limiting government, but expanding it. Get government out of it all and we will all put our collective heads together and come up with some great ideas that government will NEVER come up with.
If Republicans want to stand for limited government, personal responsibility and safety of the nation they'll find a whole lot more people voting (R).
It doesn't mean anyone is telling you to give up your principles in life, to the contrary.
It means getting government out of favoring your principles over another American's principles. It means government staying neutral in all issues of a subjective nature. And isn't that what this pluralistic nation is really all about - acknowledge the freedom of all while favoring none?
If the focus is on the idea that you live your life at no cost to another without his consent, then laws will be enacted which will give consequence to the man who makes the choice in antithesis.
Life is subjective – in the eye of the beholder. How could we possibly think government could favor and enforce every American’s version of how life should be lived?
It can’t and freedom compels that it doesn’t. Government need only uphold our Constitution and Americans will figure out the rest.
In all of life we do one of two things: we move toward something or we move away from it.
Every time you want or demand that a personal social issue of concern be managed or forced by government, you’ve moved away from freedom and into the hands of control.
If Republicans, along the spectrum, really uphold free markets, then they should have confidence that they can manage their principles and social issues of concern without government interference; that they will create innovative solutions toward their goals.
If Republicans stand by the integrity and character of limited government, personal responsibility (which includes, of course, fiscal, as well) and safety of this nation – they will find an overwhelming number of Americans over time joining the cause for freedom.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
網路avbt網路av美女網路av免費電影線上a片go2av線上av969免費卡通線上av直播線上av短片線上av電影線上av觀賞線上av免費線上av免費影片玩美av無料av無名avav下載av下載論壇av付費影片下載av漫畫王av`女優ㄇㄇavㄖ本av女優性愛圖貼bt,avsexco2av無碼av無碼avdvd無碼av電話下載無碼av免費影片無碼av女優無碼av影片直播網無碼av下載付費線上av女優線上av女優影片線上av影城美國avdvd美國av免費下載美國av女優美國av女優dvd美國av女優介紹美女av女優美女寫真av
I agree with your points. Republicans, and all Americans, need to take issue with their own ideas of what is appropriate legislation. They should subject each potential idea for a law or regulation to something like a Limited Government Litmus Test, as the role of government is prescribed in the U.S. and state constitutions, and within the Republican Principles. I want no government law which brings about "my team's" (Rep. Party) social beliefs any more than I want the other team's beliefs mandated. That is a misuse of government, and robs us all of freedom. Not only does it handcuff us, but it discourages the very dynamics which are necessary for continual improvement of our lives (in a micro and macro sense). It's also dishonest. We say we want constitutional or less government, but when we're the team in power, we want to use it for our ends. Sickening! So, Fellow Patriots, let's take issue with the ideas and rhetoric of self-proclaimed patriotic, conservative, constitutional candidates, some of whom are our dear friends, while they walk among us. Let's challenge them, as their friends, to examine their ideas of government in light of constitutional truth, as well as against the historical evidence of free market and innovation to produce wider opportunity for the many to prosper. This will train them to articulate truth in ideas, preparing them to be better advocates of correct American government, as they speak before the public who needs educating. Once they get elected, they may no longer be willing to receive reminders of truth, because they will feel newly empowered to "fix" our lives for us, as they perceive it to be their complicated and serious responsibility. Let's spare them that burden while we preserve the freedoms that will accomplish prosperity far better than any legislator's ideas of regulation-for-our-good could do. Thank you!
Great points, Cindy. I like your response and would like to utilize it for a talk I'm giving to a women's Republican group next week.
You very succinctly pointed out the contradiction that is challenging Republicans and it's worth pointing out to people.
Cheers!
Thank you, Iconic Freedon! Yes, please utilize my rhetoric. I am already passing your article to others in public meetings because someone MUST say these things, though many don't like the seeming "rain on their parade." Perhaps you may find useful the following. I hope you will credit me (cindy in Maryland) as the person who created this tool. The LIMITED GOVERNMENT LITMUS TEST: We can’t stop the spending and increase of government power that has happened before us, but we can and should insist that all future attempts at legislating government spending and regulation from this point forward should pass a LITMUS TEST. With every new bill or policy idea, ask the questions:
1. Is this request consistent with the constitutional responsibilities of government?
(Remember to differentiate between federal and state constitutions.)
2. Can private enterprise or individual effort perform this function or be part of the solution?
3. Are government’s most critical obligations, such as defense and roads, adequately funded and accomplished before adding this new obligation of funds?
4. Will this cause the government to be a competitor to private enterprise?
5. Will this promote or discourage individual effort?
6. Add your own criteria.
Happy critical thinking!
Post a Comment