Much smaller than it is now, particularly if we return to viewing government as a government and nothing but, not in addition a service agency or surrogate parent, for example.

As a rule, what can be in the private rather than the public sector, should be. The burden of proof lies always on the advocates of public (government) intervention; we don't want to return to the failed world view that is still practiced in those places whose main exports include jobs and people (notably, young people) who are voting with their feet. (And no, enlarging the scope of government to prevent such escape by making as much intervention federal as possible is not the solution, much less moral.) The “precautionary principle,” so often abused and corrupted by environmentalists and other activists on the Left, really does need to be adhered to where it makes sense, with the granting of power to government.

While the government unions and “evil corporation” and Iraq contractor scams may have killed any repetition by an Obama administration of “Reinventing Government” [gag] and “government-business partnerships” (a nice euphemism for fascistic window dressing of government interventionism), we certainly don't want to regress to the failures of the 1960s and 1970s, much less the conceit beneath the desire for Even More “progress” [sic].

The answer is — much smaller. The only questions are how smaller and the less pertinent but more contemporary question of how many want it smaller versus how many want it larger, rather than smaller.

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/prlib.htm

For single-person offices, nothing beats approval voting.

http://bcn.boulder.co.us/government/approvalvot...

A return to what still defines Americanism, our English-heritage libertarianism (what used to be “liberalism” until that word was hijacked in the late nineteenth century onward), and constitutional federalism (combined perhaps with a new system of rationalized states) is too much to expect from too many, sadly.

I agree with you on the “winner take all” system, and perhaps that the local level is the place to start. But I'm not so sure Barr should have to run for Governor first. He already has been elected to national office. Besides, I think this would also imply that Obama should have run for Governor of IL first, no?

Beck is a hit or miss with me. Sometimes he makes sense and shows a good level of thought…other times I, like Jazz, could find something in the house to toss at him. He wrote an article on cnn.com today that has generated quite a bit of reaction:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/20/beck.cit...

I too was fascinated mostly by Beck's complete lack of understanding of the term socialism. Apparently socialism just means bad to him. How is an interpretation of a climate model socialist, communist, capitalist, or other economic model? How is protecting ANWR socialist or capitalist? It's neither.

I think that they are telling the rest of us something.

“When government can no longer secure the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness it is the duty of the people to alter or abolish it”

Thomas Jefferson's advice to us from the Declaration of Independence is assuming more and more relevance today@

If we are to continue to have a country, we must start to look to alternatives like the Libertarians and Bob Barr. They aren't perfect, even by Ron Paul standards, but they will help move us in a better direction, toward that peace, prosperity, and liberty which most of our Founders wanted and away from the slavery, bankruptcy and war which is all that the establishment parties and their candidates can offer!

PEACE AND FREEDOM!
David K. Meller

I lived in Upstate New York for two years and became quite familiar with local government fiefdoms in addition to dysfunctional Albany. Parts of the country like this are just like the Big Three domestic automakers and their failure to correct their obsolete business and lavishly-overpaid-employee, paternalistic-lifetime-employer model after 1980 while we in California and other markets were buying foreign-made automobiles. The same failure to have learned exists in places like this, New York and New Jersey. The arrogance of the bureaucrats is astonishing; whenever there isn't enough money to spend as much as they want, they promptly assume, expect, that the solution is to raise taxes!

It's Cyanide Nation at its worst or nearly at its worst (New York City as the crown jewel of liberal politics and policies, bankrupting itself in the 1970s and expecting a state and federal bailout, was probably the truly worst), driving out jobs and people. If it weren't for the influx of immigrants into NYC metro, these states would be in even worse shape than they currently are.

And by the way, what does smaller government really mean for a nation that is fifth largest in terms of area, a population of a third of a billion and one of the most extensive infrastructure systems in the world? Just how small can it really be? How much can be left to the same kind of people who brought us the sub-prime lending fiasco, the energy market manipulations in California a few years back and other shining examples of anything for profit? Because there are lots of things the libertarians think can be left to the market that make me think they've got to be high on something or Free Market is their religion.

Congress doesn't, so both parties there spend however much they want. And since the US is in the position it's in, pretty much everyone else will buy our debt…so there are almost no short term consequences. We're in for a rude awakening when they won't.

I'd say that the debt is the #1 most important issue for both domestic and foreign security and really should be the primary focus of both parties.