10A,

Reply to "regardless of government size", part 1 of 2:

Corporations are always incentivized to do so regardless of government size. If you're a corporation and you have the power to get politicians to get a law passed, then the law gets passed even if the fed is tiny.

A couple of problems that make this incorrect:

  1. A nit-pick that I find distracting: The phrase "the Fed" always (at least in US context) refers to the Federal Reserve, a private bank in cahoots with the federal government. I know that's not what you meant.
  2. I don't think you realize just how tiny the federal government used to be. There were no taxes to fund anything, aside from nominal excise taxes on imports. There were no agencies, at all — none. That's our natural federal government size. They barely had any power at all, because American government is meant to be bottom-up, with families and townships having the most power, and the federal government the least.

So no, corporations are not incentivized to lobby a tiny government which exists strictly to protect the people's liberty, any more than they're incentivized to lobby you and me personally.

The root problem is lobbying (bribery) being legal. Without it we would be in a far better place.

Except lobbying isn't bribery. It's just speech, similar to advertising. I can tell my senator how great the Fediverse is and how he should make an account here, and that would count as lobbying.

The root problem is that the federal government has amassed far too much power. And to break that down, there are mainly two parts to that root problem:

  1. The Interstate Commerce Clause
  2. The Necessary and Proper Clause

Both have been grossly misinterpreted in violation of the Tenth Amendment to give the federal government unrestricted control over the states. The solution is for SCOTUS to apply the doctrine of originalism to restore these two clauses to their intended meaning. If they have the cahoonas to do that, ~2.87 million federal civilian employees will suddenly be out of a job, and many of our lost freedoms will be restored overnight. Oh yeah, and the incentive to lobby will move to the state level, where governors and state legislatures actually have to worry about losing taxpayers over bad policies.

I think the issue of government size is more nuanced than that. There are things that republicans want that would make the government bigger, and there are things that democrats/leftists want that would make it smaller.

Sure, well both DNC and RNC are coalitions, and we don't all agree on the details. But my view that the sole responsibility of the federal government is to protect the people's liberty is a fairly generic Republican view. Border protection and national defense are the only expensive requirements of that.

There is definitely some regulation that needs to be abandoned, certain zoning laws immediately come to mind,

Agreed!

but the largest reason why we have so little freedom here in comparison is because of government surveillance programs,

Agreed!

corporate control

No!

And ranking freedom solely on economic freedom is not a good methodology.

Agreed!

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • conservative@lemmy.world
  • ngwrru68w68
  • rosin
  • GTA5RPClips
  • osvaldo12
  • love
  • Youngstown
  • slotface
  • khanakhh
  • everett
  • kavyap
  • mdbf
  • DreamBathrooms
  • thenastyranch
  • magazineikmin
  • megavids
  • InstantRegret
  • normalnudes
  • tacticalgear
  • cubers
  • ethstaker
  • modclub
  • cisconetworking
  • Durango
  • anitta
  • Leos
  • tester
  • provamag3
  • JUstTest
  • All magazines