Gum Disease victims need not suffer any further. There is now a breakthrough

That’s why I think the argument about whether government should be “big” or “small” is a stupid argument. A “small” government can still be inefficient, corrupt, and oppressive of citizens’ rights. A “big” government can be those things too, of course.

The thing is, I don’t know of anyone who argues that government *should* be big for the sake of being big. I’m as pure a liberal in the American tradition of liberalism as you are likely to find anywhere, and I don’t even think that. I don’t think government should be any bigger than it needs to be to do what it needs to do, and it’s up to the people to decide what it needs to do. If the people decide that a “small” government is adeqate to meet their needs, that’s fine with me.

I don’t like to be taxed up the wazoo for bogus programs or pork barrel projects any more than anyone else. And whenever the private sector can do something as well as or better than government for less money, by all means, let the private sector do it. I’m just saying people should apply critical thinking skills instead of knee-jerk ideology to the problems that face us. Private is not *always* better than public, and the notion that shrinking the size of government is *always* the cure for whatever is wrong with it is nothing but magical thinking. It’s not logical or critical thinking.

The point is not limits on government per se, but limits set by whom, and for what?”

Indeed. I should have said, as maha did, “limited goverment ideology,” which is a whole ‘nother animal altogether.

It’s true that any limited-government system can be corrupted by an oligarchy. But it’s also true that any _un_limited government system can be corrupted by an oligarchy. Any system can be gamed. That is why the compromise between government and anarchy constantly shifts, as old tactics wear out.

Limits on gov’t power limits the mischief it can do, if it goes wrong, as it might from time to time. For instance, aren’t you glad that Bush doesn’t have the draft? That’s a limit on government! Or take the Magna Carta; another excellent limit.

The point is not limits on government per se, but limits set by whom, and for what?

Exactly.

It’s about power and wealth, and these interests are (badly) masked by political philosophies that are quickly dropped when they no longer serve their purpose. Who. in the Bush Administration. wants to limit the power of the President?!

Interesting also that in theory, socialism is defined as gov’t ownership of the means of production (meaning factories), while in this Friedman era, gov’t ownership of anything (roads, waterways, parks) is derided as socialism.

I’ve often wondered why Norquist and his ilk failed to emigrate to Somalia, since it apparently embodied their ideals.

But it’s not anti-oligarchic, which is the point, nor is it in practice actually anti-aristocratic.