Less government or personal freedom?

[Pushed To The Left]

Which is more important to you? (Yes, there IS a difference)

[Syrinx]

1. personal freedom

I don't necessarily want less government, I just want it allocated much differently than it is now, ie. more help for the poor, less welfare for the rich.

[deadparrot]

2. For me,

government isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's only when it starts imposing on my personal freedoms that I resent it.

[seabeyond]

3. less government creates personal freedom

i dont get the question

[Pushed To The Left]

6. This is the difference:

I'll use a recreational weekend marijuana smoker as an example.

Less government: He would have the freedom to smoke marijuana in the privacy of his home. However, his employer would be able to fire him for what he did off the clock. His personal freedom is limited because he can still be penalized by losing his job. Getting fired can have a very serious negative effect on someone's life.

Personal freedom: He would have the freedom to smoke marijuana in the privacy of his home, and his employer would not be allowed to penalize him for what he does off the clock. This would give the employee greater personal freedom, but it would require government intervention to do so.

[0rganism]

7. Depends on what part of government gets lessened, tho

Cutting inner-city literacy programs and foodstamp funding won't be creating personal freedom for anyone, but you'll get your "less government" anyway.

[Telly Savalas]

9. Without roads, schools, law enforcement, or health care

I have the personal freedom of being uneducated, getting victimized by criminals, getting no treatment when I'm extremely sick, and having a hell of a time getting around. It pisses me off when big government infringes on these freedoms by providing for the public good.

[seabeyond]

10. the question isnt no government, keep it real n/t

[Telly Savalas]

12. I am keeping it real.

The cornerstone of conservative rhetoric is that government is evil. If we're going to parrot their talking points about the virtues of limited government, then we're going to have an awfully hard time promoting key components of the progressive agenda. (e.g. universal health care)

The question isn't that of less versus more government. It's good versus bad government.

[Stinky The Clown]

4. I couldn't vote for either one.

I surely want personal freedeom, but not at the expense of another person's personal freedom.

I want smaller government, but not so small that it can't protect the least of us. Not so small that it can't provide a minimum standard of living for everyone (regional minimum wage standards, universal single payer health care, a place for everyone to live in that meets a minimum standard of habitability, etc.) Not so small that it will fail to protect our security (including protecting us from predatory corporate interests). Not so small that our nation is incapable of defending itself.

But not so large that it intrudes in all facets of our lives as it surely does now.

[KaliTracy]

5. i want a government that is Out of my bedroom, Out of my womb, Out

of manipulating my child's education, Out of my Library, Out of my constitutional right of free speech, and Out of my Internet surfing and posting.

[funflower]

8. Here here!

:toast:

[toddaa]

11. What less government really means

It means no military industrial complex thinking up new and exciting ways to kill people more efficiantly so that corporate profits can be maximized. Never forget that government exists for one reason and one reason only, to extend its own power. This is why the American people must DEMAND accountability. We'd much rather go shopping than demand accountability and that's why we now have a big government.

Yes, we all want things like education, reduction of poverty, and national health care. We can get those things through federal government programs. But those things can be acheived by a small government. To kill lot's of people and put lot's of others in jail, you need a big government.