Do you believe......"That government is best which governs LEAST"?

Question

Do you believe......"That government is best which governs LEAST"?

Answer 1

No. It is one of the clever statement the people repeat without thinking about what it means, Just because too much government is oppressive it does not follow that there can not be to little. Somalia has the least government of any county in the world, and it is a nightmare to live there.

Answer 2

We sure could use him now.

Answer 3

Least is not the same as not at all. This is what I think of as an incomplete statement. There are several unvoiced limitations involved that for speech making purposes Jefferson didn't expound on. That's the problem with sound bites and slogans. They sum a position up but don't give the hairy details. And the devil, dear Watson, is in the details.

Answer 4

Yes

Answer 5

Absolutely!!!!!!!!!!

Answer 6

YES

Answer 7

As a Jeffersonian in politics, I must certainly agree with that.

Answer 8

YES

Answer 9

yea totally, the state is there to keep us safe. period. defend us and our property from aggression and fraud.. thats all the state needs to do, people can do the rest for themselves

Answer 10

Yes

Answer 11

Yes, and a Constitutional government would be the least and the best.





A government that does all required of it by the Constitution and nothing more.



I'm all in favor of allowing the Republic to function as designed, where 50 experiments in self-government can move forward.





The policy of the American government is to leave their (states) citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits. – Thomas Jefferson





That's a 20 word summation of the Constitution.



I shall exert every faculty I possess in aiding to prevent the Constitution from being nullified, destroyed, or impaired; and even though I should see it fail, I will still, with a voice feeble, perhaps, but earnest as ever issued from human lips, and with extinguish, call on the people to come to its rescue. – Daniel Webster









Fear of anarchy is no reason to abide the current government for much longer. (by current I mean the one that has been in place since 1860)



To say that a bad government must be established for fear of anarchy is really saying that we should kill ourselves for fear of dying. – Richard Henry Lee (1732 - 1794), Member of Continental Congress, Signer of the Declaration of Independence, U.S. Senator of Virginia

Answer 12

And Yet Thomas Jefferson was a part of Government .

I do wish You people ( many who voted Republican ) would Have at least made a whimper when Republican Bush decided to trash the Constitution when He created The NOT SO PATRIOT ACT> which gave the government complete Access To OUR private lives with OUT our permission.

In Fact Bush took advantage of the 9/11 attack and convinced every one that it was necessary to take our rights away . He convinced Congress and the American people.

Now we Know what a Diabolical Act that really was .

I think Health Care reform Is the first Morally decent thing that the government has done in a very long time .

Answer 13

well, if their wasn't a bunch of Greedy, Cold-Blooded Vultures out there that live by the code of the "Dog Eat Dog World", who Scam the Weak and Less Intelligent or Powerless out of their Hard Earned money......





like the Stock Market Hedge-Fund Managers, and Oil Corporations, and Insurance Company's, Military Defense Contractors, Mainstream Media News Outlets, Bankers and Real Estate Agencies...etc.....etc...



if you give these Crooks Free Reign they even Implode themselves and everyone along with them......!



since they don't Play Fair and they have the Gotcha Sucker" Game Plan and attitude and Prey on the Less Fortunate, YES, the Government needs to step in or all you White Collar Sons O Btch's would end up " Sleepin Wit Da Fishes"........



Got It........?

Answer 14

I wish there was a complete audio collection of General Electric speeches given by Ronald Reagan. But one quote - after GE fired him for "controversial" speeches - fits in almost any era: "I didn't leave the Democratic Party. The party left me."

Answer 15

people will regularly act intelligently as long as they understand that they ought to...different than whilst they might blame it on somebody else. I hate apologists; if somebody screws up, that's somebody else's fault. If somebody drops out of highschool and would not get a remarkable interest, society failed that individual. If somebody's domicile gets foreclosed on, it is not their fault for procuring something they might't cope with to pay for...that's the financial enterprise's fault for stealing his domicile. If a small employer is going out of employer...it is not their fault for no longer offering purchasers something that different shops do no longer, that's the huge employer' fault for utilising opposition out of the marketplace. whilst people understand that no person else is going to bail them out for their stupidity, even nevertheless, they are going to provide up doing those issues. In 1996, welfare became reformed, permitting individual states to set welfare coverage. even nevertheless, no person ought to acquire welfare advantages for extra desirable than 2 years entire for the duration of their existence. This honestly made it completely impossible to existence off welfare. people whined that the undesirable could be no longer able to proceed to exist, with the aid of fact such a great number of people relied on welfare. whilst welfare dried up, even nevertheless, such prophecies did no longer arrive with the aid of fact it is not actual that no longer uncomplicated to get a job and help your self. people can be particularly stupid, however the stupidity is a call. whilst they're compelled to, people are extraordinarily sensible. yet that's inevitable. that's no longer something new; this habit has been the comparable considering that people have existed. the difficulty is basically that Congress wasn't o.k.-concept-out. that's totally no longer uncomplicated to united statesa. an incumbent congressman, and there are no term limits in Congress. finally, you're no longer likely to alter government by using electing diverse people. Congress basically needs to get replaced. the final way interior the quick term could be for individual state governments to set term limits for that state's senators. It became tried interior the 1880s...yet with the aid of function seniority performs in Congress, the states that did no longer set term limits ended up dropping all their congressional impression, so as that complete concept flopped.

Answer 16

I've seen no evidence of that. I could see how it might seem true in response to English totalitarian Monarchy.. but with modern infrastructure, it seems a bit archaic.

Answer 17

I count six dots in your ellipsis. A proper ellipsis is three dots.

Answer 18

Everyone knows that Jefferson smoked crack and ate chilrens

Answer 19

E-mail that to president Obama, he needs to hear it more than we do.

Answer 20

no

Answer 21

No.