I get the adversarial political system - we the voters need to see the "warts and all", and so I get a multi-party system. But how can one of those major *government* parties have (or purport to have) a limited government platform with a straight face?
sort by best latest
Limited - yes, absent - no, or else the Constitution would be self-destructive. Law IS big government, be it a traffic regulation or the 1st Amendment.
No, that's not true. The law is not big (by which most people mean pervasive) government. The law exists in all nonarchist systems. No one in any organized political party is calling for anarchy.
Now you've piqued my curiosity. Has there ever, in human history, been a truly successful AND truly anarchic society. Is "anarchic society" an oxymoron? lol
It's not an oxymoron, but it can exist only in a very small society. Think tiny villages. Even then, it never has existed for long. Society needs rules and enforcement methods, either formal or loose.
So, in their eyes, they have to get their hands dirty to keep the system, of which they are a part, clean?! I just can't wrap my head around that. There has to be more to it than altruistic self-sacrifice. They all sell pork to their home base.
There is nothing in this ideology which would morally prevent a person from participating in politics. In fact it fundamentally requires that we make laws that limit government. Like what the founding fathers did when they drafted the constitution.
Make a law to limit law?? That should not be at all necessary. If it isn't specifically prohibited, I may, can and will do it at my leisure. Implied laws or rules are absolutely unfair and have no validity. Letter rules, not man.
Most people who dislike their jobs don't do so as an expression of idealogy, which then would be and is hypocrisy, as would be professing it so vehemently and then becoming a part of what they CLAIM to be against. Deed must match word.