Some Questions For Conservatives And Libertarians

First to clarify, the US Constitution is the document on which our country is founded. Under it, the Government is given the power to protect and defend the United States. That particular power is clearly stated in this document. Our founding fathers knew what they liked about government and what they didn't like about government. Thus they tried to take the good parts and leave out the bad. That being said, read through the Constitution. Then come back and quote exactly where it says that the Federal government is responsible for everyone's health care. You misunderstand the health care fight if you think that is about health care insurance or some 2000 page law that Congress signed but didn't read. In fact, it is about the balance of power between the federal government, the state government, and the rights of the individual. The federal government crossed the line of power when it required all of its citizens to purchase a commodity (health care insurance). Therein lies the real argument of Libertarians and Conservatives. Yes, government is incompetent. Government health care is incompetent. We have very strong examples of this incompetency in the health care system of American Indians and the health care of our Nations Veterans. The first, the government is obligated by law. The second, the government is obligated by service. Such strong examples can't be ignored when looking at government run health care. The founding fathers did know that the needed a strong central government for the protection of the country. They knew that left unchecked, government would run amok. They also recognized the individuality of the states. What people want to is to get back to the basics as defined by the US Constitution. But if you really think about it, the reason the government is so incompetent is because we as the American people have been voting the wrong people in.

Libertarians usually don't have this inconsistency, but conservatives/neoconservatives do. The warfare state, in my view, is just as dangerous and costly as the welfare state. Ron Paul is one of the few Republicans currently serving in office that wants limited government in both the warfare and welfare, and consistently votes for it.

gew great subject and argument. I formulated my answer then looked at your responses. Mine was very close to other conservatives and libertarians here. My issue is with Federal Government. Not state, county, or local. The key is the Constitution. The Federal Government should be run by this wise and common sense model. It is when it isnt that I take exception. We are the only country that is afforded such rights and we should NEVER EVER take them for granted! When we give more and more power to the government, we take away our own. I think our founding fathers struck a very good balance. Healthcare is not a part of that. Nor is welfare. We have all seen what welfare has done for us :) Our military is a part. We are the first country to ever win independence from England. Without our military might, this would not have happened. I could go on to site other instance where our military has defended our rights and freedoms, but that was not the discussion. It is not for us to trust our government, on the contrary, it is our jobs to watch them audit them and overall babysit. Unfortunately these days the roles have been reversed.

" We do not use horse and buggy as our form of transportation, because it is inefficient compared to the automobile." Well, most don't, but it's still used in some parts of America. It's more efficient than your own two feet, at least. Quite frankly I don't trust the government with heavy weaponry, either. Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the military style actions the government has taken against it's OWN citizens is proof of how irresponsible they can be. On the other hand, a lot those things sure do come in handy when they're genuinely needed. It's one thing to use those weapons to take out a violent gang of criminals who've been unloading rounds into hostages, and another to use them to break into a middle American home, kill the family pet, and scare the crap out of everybody just over an anonymous tip that the patriarch has a bunch of pot. Point being, there's reasonable help, and then there's overkill - that goes for just about anything, really.

In my perfect world, the purpose of a government is to protect and provide for its citizens. This includes, but is not limited to, police, fire, military, roads, schools, some minimum standard of living, keeping the rich from exploiting the poor (monopolies), etc. Sadly, governments in the real world tend to be run by the rich and their puppets, and are really not out to protect the weak.

Very good point Gew. I think it would be interesting to see what makes certain parts of our government "inefficient, and incompetent". Sometimes there are reasons why our government works the way it does, and once we see why they do these things, we actually are happy they do. I am sure there are a lot of people in the gulf area that wish that the government would have took it's time and investigated what BP was REALLY doing down there.

It's the checks and balances. Mess with the checks and balances / the limitations of government, and the people live to regret it. History proves it. We don't approve of what government does for defense, or often we don't, so why hand over more control. Change health insurance, not add another layer of kickbacks, plus lumbering bureaucracy.

Nice discussion. So here you go. First off, we have a constitution. That constitution clearly spells out the powers of the federal government. Now I'm not going to get into all the state's issues because that would just take to long. Now government, ANY government, is NOT inherently inefficient. The most efficient form of government is a dictatorship. Of course dictatorships can rarely be called benign, so they're a bit rare in the modern world. So we have to determine why, exactly, is our government inefficient and incompetent. The simple answer is that the politicians running the show are inefficient and/or incompetent. It's been brought up many times before that the skills necessary to obtain elected office are drastically different than those necessary to be effective in elected office. As for our military. I feel that as an organization, they are generally efficient. Soldiers and generals are not typically politicians while serving in the armed forces. Our military is often used inefficiently by politicians, but as far as a unit, they themselves are efficient.

I'm a moderate so I'm going to respond regardless of the criteria in your subject line. Generally speaking, I do not find the government to be inefficient and incompetent. Is the Socail Security Administration inefficient when it comes to retirement? Is the Veteran's Administration inefficient and incompetent when it comes to caring for the medical needs of our wounded warriors? Are they inefficient and incompetent when it comes to processing and paying disability claims? Is the IRS inefficient and incompetent when it comes to getting your income tax refund deposited into your bank account within 10 to 14 days? I chose those three because they are large bureaucracies. None of them are perfect...the V.A. has actually improved and streamlined their financial benefits arm so they are serving the needs of vets more efficiently. The contention that "the government" is one entity that is entirely inefficient and incompetent is incorrect. Which brings me to our military. The military is not a single entity either and is far from inefficient and incompetent.

I want the government to do what government is supposed to do; ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION and that ONLY. I believe the less the better when it comes to Federal powers. I think we actually fought a war here in this country to settle that question, didn't we? Of course, we've been brainwashed into believing it was ONLY about the slavery issue, and that when the blue coats won, it was a great thing! Of course, I am a big fan of liberty and justice for all, don't get me wrong. We are reaping what we sowed by allowing slavery in the first place, now we have division and strife in our society as a result of that long ago error. BUT my point is...the federal government needs to stay out of the business of running mine and everyone elses private lives and stick to the the powers given given to it by the law of the land. I don't care if we do have to go back to horse and buggy and coal for heat, actually. Down here in the Ozarks, I'd survive. Would you, or the others reading this? Maybe THATS what it takes to get this awful mess we're in straightened out. Incompetent and inefficient, you seriously aren't trying to make the point that the AREN'T incompetent and inefficient, are you? In my opinion, that is ONLY the TIP of the iceberg called Washington, D.C.

*applauds* While I think the government is corrupt and hasn't a chance of actually accomplishing anything worth while I personally would not be against them handling Health Care. It would be an improvement in my opinion to the way things are with private businesses handling it. At least a government might occasionally have to remember that life is more important then money, no business is ever go to remember that.