How 'bout That Iowa Caucus

An explanation of the quote "That Government is Best Which Governs Least":

"The idea that government should stay out of our lives can be traced back as far as the Declaration of Independence.  There, Jefferson argues that the only reason to have a government is to protect our inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  We form governments to protect those rights, not to have the government interfere with other aspects of our lives.  Thoreau is saying that good governments do only what is necessary.  They protect us from murder and from theft (among other things) but they do not unnecessarily get involved in our lives.  When a government makes many laws that are not directly connected to our safety and security, it is moving away from being the best kind of government."

boldface added - DD

[From somewhere on the internets to which poor old DonDiego cannot link.] 

It depends on what you mean by "involved in our lives." I would say that police and fire departments, for example, are "involved in our lives." And I, for one, approve of that!

If the government inspects and regulates food and drugs, it's involved in our lives. Health inspectors who visit and approve the restaurants where I'll be eating are involved in my life. I benefit from those things.

So whoever you were quoting, they were being disingenuous. You don't like something government does, you can bitch and whine about government overreach. However, those who do the most such whining also happily lap up all the benefits of government they receive and have always received--many of which they're not even aware of!

How would you like to travel with no FAA, no NTSB, no Federal Highway Administration? You don't like government regulation? Fine, let's let everyone drive however and wherever they want! Pick your own side of the road! One-way streets? That's government regulation! Let planes take off and land wherever and whenever they want! FREEDOM!!!!

I know it's a conservative shibboleth to say that government is an inherently bad thing. However, if you study history at all, ungoverned societies are miserable and often collapse. Those with minimal government are usually on the brink of collapse.

Thoreau was a nutjob. He dreamed of this idyllic existence where we could all go pastoral and just hang out sniffing the flowers. However, even he had to walk into town every day to buy food--which wouldn't have been available to him (nor would the means to purchase it) without government.

I for one don't want to live in a society where there are no checks or restrictions on the behavior of the gun-fondling bozo next door. In a limited-government society, he can play target practice in his back yard and if I get killed by a ricochet, oh well. Saying that he can't do that would be government overreach, I guess.

I guess a simpler way to put all that would be that government can't protect our inalienable rights without interfering in our lives--because it has to protect others from what we might do as well as protect us from what others might do.

Also, providing things like libraries, public parks, education, etc. is technically interfering in our lives--but those things do help us with our "pursuit of happiness." Laissez-faire government does nothing to protect the rights of the people or ensure their happiness.

Fun fact:    the United States does not top the list of countries whose population is the happiest or who have the most social mobility.    Countries that rank ahead of the United States in these categories have decidedly more government intervention than does the United States.   Yikes ! What would Thomas J say?  Or his slaves for that matter?

(note - naming these countries out loud causes a great deal of anxiety towards people who believe Socialism only exists in Facist Bannana Republics like Venezuela.    So just keep that in mind)

Socialism. Soooocialism! SOOOOOOOOOCIALISM!

We're going to hear that chant over and over and over and over and over from Republicans. I've already seen an ad about the Orange One's holy mission being to "save the country from socialism." Moscow Mitch hinted that it will be the foundation of Republican attack ads.

What none of these Trumpholes has ever explained is: what's wrong with socialism? (And don't say "Venezuela.") It's been quite successful in dozens of countries, and of course, it's been applied in varying degrees; it's not a black-and-white concept. The United States is partially socialist. Also, no Democratic candidate is espousing socialism. Bernie, for example, espouses democratic socialism--a distinction our idiot Trumpers may be unable to fathom, but a significant one nonetheless.

I prefer not to rely on ideology I snorted up at the dinner table from mah pappy. I prefer to examine what works. Socialism, when applied responsibly, results in greater levels of happiness, greater levels of wealth, and a more egalitarian society. Those are the facts, irrespective of what you, I, Republicans, or our Trumper scum may think.