@SpikeTalon That it was created.

@SpikeTalon Their ideas in this area are more like anarchy. They have no ideas on how infrastructure would be built or maintained;how the current functions of government would be completed when they do away with most government. To follow what they have outlined to me would resemble the wild west days where one had better be quick on the draw to survive.

@SpikeTalon Back when (th elast) Bush was elected i checked into immigrating to Canada. It is very diffibult to do... and it is expensive. I suspect many who would llike to are not able to. It's kind of liek beign stuck in a job you hate and nto beign able to afford to quit, as there are no opportuniries open for which you qualify for.

When your options are limited, you stay put.

@SpikeTalon The problems is the advantages of lawhere there is no or very little regualtin are only there for a very few. The hands off aproach means a few people will hoarde allthe resources for themselves and use draconian means to prevent competition. Even Adam Smith in his book "The Wealth of nations" proposed a progbrassive tax system, where those who benefittted the most from a society paid the most in taxes (actaully I think he originated the idea of the prograsive tax system, as I have never seen an eariler reference or heard of one.)

There is the so called "free market" and then there is the "fair market". Ironically the regulated fair maket has more freedom for more people, whiel the free markets limit oportunities for those who woudl otherwise be economically upwardly mobile.

The free market theories seldom take actual human nature into account, whci is why the Chicago school of economics theories failed in actual practice.

Human nature (such as the 1 out of 26 persons who are more sociopathic than normal), requires regulations in order for markets to be fair and to allow more freedom for more people to actualy benefit from their own labors, rather than have their labor benefit others.

@Veteran229 At the time the country was founded, the populations were a lot smaller and coudl could possibly be managed by a small government. At this poitn we have many cities with larger populations than was presttn in the entire country at its founding.

The founders also realized teh country woudl grow and made allowances for change to accomodate the growth and changes as tiem passed. They set up a government to reprent the population and the House fo representatives was also (originally) supposed to grow with the population. So, they expect the government to grow larger as the populatin did.

I am all for government beign no larger than it has to be to manage its population, which is not out of line with the founders intent.

If you want to go with the gounder's intent, Oringially Coporations were outlawed, then they only had a very limited life span before they had to be disolved. This was due to the "royal monopoly" grantted to the East India Cimpany for which taxes were waived for many goods, such as tea. The smaller merchants were taxed heavily. Thus the protest of the Boston Tea Party, and "taxation without representation. However, later as the railroads came along, the limited lifespans on corporations were lifted. Anyway, the point is that the foundign fathers hated corporations too, but times change and we had to reinstitute them in order to compete with foreign nations in trade.

The founding fathers intended a lot of things, but they realized societies change and that government must grow to accommodate changes.

A large government is needed to serve a large population, and to insure fairness, as in large populations anonymity leads to people tryign to take advantage.

@SpikeTalon In my opinion, the best thign done under the Clinton administration was "The national Assessment Project". It was headed up by Al Gore and it basically went in and looked at the way governent agencies did things, and cut out inecessary work and re tape, and leterrally shrank the aize of government. Had Al Gore run on that he woudl have easily won, but he listened to "professional" campaigners. Anyway, they ended up savign a lot of money, which is how they ended up with a surplus the last two of the Clinton years, because they saved far more money thyan was projected.

I think there shoudl be an ongoing Dept.l of "National Assessment" (Or insert an appropriate name_, which does nothing other than look for ways to save the government money and/or make sure money is not beign wasted. A part of what they woudl do is talk to employees about how they do their jobs, what slows them down or gets itn eh way and where they think the waste is. That is how the national Assessment project worked, and it was very successful, much to chigrin of those who had contracts with the government.

Anyway, corruption, where I might be concerned about who regulates the regulators wont' be so easily done when the overnment is kept lean and effficient.

@SpikeTalon Yeah far too many can be paid/boughr off.

@SpikeTalon I'm registered libertarian, but I lean more ancap/voluntaryist/agorist.