Lefties continuing to prove that they have absolutely zero idea what the other side believes and filling in the gaps with their own perspective.
Someone who wants less government influence in their life wants less government total. The bloated bureaucracy is an example of government overreach to that person. Someone who believes government influence in their life is a net positive thinks that the amount of power the institution has should remain absolute, even if the amount of bureaucracy shrinks.
Now, exposing my own limited perspective, how in the world can ANYONE think that the amount of government influence we have in our lives is a good thing?
Now, exposing my own limited perspective, how in the world can ANYONE think that the amount of government influence we have in our lives is a good thing?
They want a live devoid of personal responsibility and for the government to fill the role of their parents, caretakers that provide for them and tell them what to do.
That and they know their livelihood depends on it. I have legitimately heard people argue that the government employs so many otherwise unemployable people so we can't shrink it.
They want everyone to do that, not just the government.
That's why they insist (and push for laws that require) employer provided: health insurance, dental insurance, retirement contributions, child care, travel reimbursement, vacation pay, etc etc. They are too lazy to budget for those things out of their paycheck so they insist that their employee forces to provide them.
No. When you try to discredit everyone who disagrees with you by accusing them of being goose-stepping tyrants, yet you honor and praise actual goose-stepping tyrants like Xi Jinping, that's not a "perspective." That's a power-hungry fantasy. That's a self report.
Now, exposing my own limited perspective, how in the world can ANYONE think that the amount of government influence we have in our lives is a good thing?
When they can use it as a bludgeon to get people to do what they want. See: All the deep state activists and various political appointees ruling from the bench.
The issue is that they do not comprehend what "smaller" actually means. They cannot imagine a government that controls less, so in their mind when someone suggests "smaller government", they imagine a consolidated government, not a small government.
Which is funny because it implies that it's somehow better to have a tyrannical government made of many over a single tyrant, forgetting that the issue isn't the size, but the tyranny.
I don't think they are "forgetting". Whenever I would talk to a lefty about reducing government power if they hate Trump so much, or about police abusing power, their answer would always boil down to "Oh no we do want that power, just in our hands."
What you said about smaller vs consolidated is a good observation though. That destroys this meme.
I more meant in the very specific instance of an undeniable tyranny. Within general discussions about government power, reach and size, there is no forgetting, they absolutely want as much size and scope as they can get. But in this specific example, the idea is that a tyranny of mass scale is supposedly better than a tyranny of a singular individual.
As others have pointed out, it's a very paternalistic view of the state, where it's treated as their keeper/ward/guardian/parent, rather than what should be at best nothing more than a framework. Everything else is nothing more than bribes by politicians to give one group benefits at the cost of another for votes so that they remain in power through "democracy", AKA mob rule (those bribes being more commonly called social safety nets or similar terms).
You sometimes get lucky in a monarchy or dictatorship that the leader is benevolent or just doesn't care so long as people don't oppose their rule.
In the opposite, democracies can easily become authoritarian with low voter interest and a bureaucracy designed so no matter who the voters vote for, they get the same result.
Yeah. Monarchies and dictators also can be killed off easily.. easier to find the person respnsibile. While democracies just shifts blame around and circle jerks each other.. with hundreds if not thousands of mini dictators.
Yeah, neither system is superior in either regards. That's why I sometimes want to smack the tards who are advocating a monarchy for the West. You only want a monarchy because you think the person in charge will hold your views and be there forever and never be assassinated. Imagine your average Reddit user being in that position, someone like us would not last a week in that country because they would try to get rid of us.
That's why the US being a Constitutional Republic is the best compromise we can have. The very nature of the design of the government keeps the government from getting bigger than it already is. Can you imagine if we had a government run like a Europoor country? We'd be even deeper in debt with all kinds of shit laws passed.
Wow your entire country submits to one dude in a chair and his two bodyguards who don't even appear to be armored or even trained? I wish authoritarian government's ran themselves like that... You could actually stop their tryanny that way.
Truth be told, monarchy is the natural state of humanity. All this democracy shit is an inversion of the natural order and has been shunned for eons for a reason.
Lefties continuing to prove that they have absolutely zero idea what the other side believes and filling in the gaps with their own perspective.
Someone who wants less government influence in their life wants less government total. The bloated bureaucracy is an example of government overreach to that person. Someone who believes government influence in their life is a net positive thinks that the amount of power the institution has should remain absolute, even if the amount of bureaucracy shrinks.
Now, exposing my own limited perspective, how in the world can ANYONE think that the amount of government influence we have in our lives is a good thing?
They want a live devoid of personal responsibility and for the government to fill the role of their parents, caretakers that provide for them and tell them what to do.
That and they know their livelihood depends on it. I have legitimately heard people argue that the government employs so many otherwise unemployable people so we can't shrink it.
Three words: Learn to code.
Tbf the last thing I want is the commies coding
Mine the coals.
They want everyone to do that, not just the government. That's why they insist (and push for laws that require) employer provided: health insurance, dental insurance, retirement contributions, child care, travel reimbursement, vacation pay, etc etc. They are too lazy to budget for those things out of their paycheck so they insist that their employee forces to provide them.
FTFY
FTFY.
They call us "racists" for controlling the border, yet lament "who will pick our fields and clean our toilets?"
They call us "lawless" and "tyrants," yet impeached Trump and spent four years dragging him through court on unfounded charges.
They call us "evil," "cruel" and "hateful", yet they lament both failed assassination attempts on Trump and hoped for more.
Every lie the Left spews about us is either what they themselves are doing or wish they could do.
So... one might say that they're filling in the gaps with their own perspective?
No. When you try to discredit everyone who disagrees with you by accusing them of being goose-stepping tyrants, yet you honor and praise actual goose-stepping tyrants like Xi Jinping, that's not a "perspective." That's a power-hungry fantasy. That's a self report.
Projection is confession for the insane.
When they can use it as a bludgeon to get people to do what they want. See: All the deep state activists and various political appointees ruling from the bench.
Far too much thinking required for Redditors.
The issue is that they do not comprehend what "smaller" actually means. They cannot imagine a government that controls less, so in their mind when someone suggests "smaller government", they imagine a consolidated government, not a small government.
Which is funny because it implies that it's somehow better to have a tyrannical government made of many over a single tyrant, forgetting that the issue isn't the size, but the tyranny.
I don't think they are "forgetting". Whenever I would talk to a lefty about reducing government power if they hate Trump so much, or about police abusing power, their answer would always boil down to "Oh no we do want that power, just in our hands."
What you said about smaller vs consolidated is a good observation though. That destroys this meme.
I more meant in the very specific instance of an undeniable tyranny. Within general discussions about government power, reach and size, there is no forgetting, they absolutely want as much size and scope as they can get. But in this specific example, the idea is that a tyranny of mass scale is supposedly better than a tyranny of a singular individual.
As others have pointed out, it's a very paternalistic view of the state, where it's treated as their keeper/ward/guardian/parent, rather than what should be at best nothing more than a framework. Everything else is nothing more than bribes by politicians to give one group benefits at the cost of another for votes so that they remain in power through "democracy", AKA mob rule (those bribes being more commonly called social safety nets or similar terms).
I won't insult their intelligence by suggesting that they actually conflate representative institutions with government apparatus.
But let's be real, a government consisting of three people in total wouldn't have the power to oppress anyone (or do any goood).
You sometimes get lucky in a monarchy or dictatorship that the leader is benevolent or just doesn't care so long as people don't oppose their rule.
In the opposite, democracies can easily become authoritarian with low voter interest and a bureaucracy designed so no matter who the voters vote for, they get the same result.
Yeah. Monarchies and dictators also can be killed off easily.. easier to find the person respnsibile. While democracies just shifts blame around and circle jerks each other.. with hundreds if not thousands of mini dictators.
Yeah, neither system is superior in either regards. That's why I sometimes want to smack the tards who are advocating a monarchy for the West. You only want a monarchy because you think the person in charge will hold your views and be there forever and never be assassinated. Imagine your average Reddit user being in that position, someone like us would not last a week in that country because they would try to get rid of us.
That's why the US being a Constitutional Republic is the best compromise we can have. The very nature of the design of the government keeps the government from getting bigger than it already is. Can you imagine if we had a government run like a Europoor country? We'd be even deeper in debt with all kinds of shit laws passed.
That's not the government that needs to downsize. We should have accurate representation, and no pork omnibus bills.
"Bureaucracies are incapable of tyranny"
That's actually all they're capable of
Wow your entire country submits to one dude in a chair and his two bodyguards who don't even appear to be armored or even trained? I wish authoritarian government's ran themselves like that... You could actually stop their tryanny that way.
Right? If the US had that kinda system considering how much the US is armed those three guys would be FEARING the population.
Truth be told, monarchy is the natural state of humanity. All this democracy shit is an inversion of the natural order and has been shunned for eons for a reason.
SMALLER!
They just want to work for the last guy in charge, that's all.
Reddit is losing its shit because government is getting smaller and it can't depend on the teat of the government to bail them out.
Are they also aware the shrinking of government will also benefit our economy as well or nah?