Has the growth of government ever reversed?

[awake]

And Regan simply slowed the growth....

Any thoughts or historical examples?

[Rancher]

Maybe. Andrew Jackson routed the bankers out in the 1830's. I don't know if government got smaller though.

[Agorism]

Reagan possibly slowed the rate of the growth.

He probably sped it up though. Jackson killed lots of indians. That's kind of like extreme government growth.


Someone has this avatar.
http://rlv.zcache.com/trust_the_government_bumper_sticker-p128270462526861069trl0_400.jpg

[jmdrake]

Rome collapsed.

[Rancher]

Reagan possibly slowed the rate of the growth.

He probably sped it up though. Jackson killed lots of indians. That's kind of like extreme government growth.
I'm don't know why there was so much racial hatred in the 1800's, but it was prevalent throughout the world. What does that have to do with the size of government?

Did President Jackson increase the size of the military to eradicate Indians? Do you any have statistics on government growth during the 1830's?

[Koz]

I don't think Reagan slowed the growth of Government.

Didn't Harding decrease the size of Govt. during the depression of 1920-21?

[Agorism]

I'm don't know why there was so much racial hatred in the 1800's, but it was prevalent throughout the world. What does that have to do with the size of government?

Did President Jackson increase the size of the military to eradicate Indians? Do you any have statistics on government growth during the 1830's?

It's just like the draft. Allowing the government to kill people is much more intrusive than allowing it to tax people.

That's why the government should not be allowed to kill anyone.

[Rancher]

It's just like the draft. Allowing the government to kill people is much more intrusive than allowing it to tax people.

That's why the government should not be allowed to kill anyone.
You will get no disagreement with me on those points. The question was about growth. Did the size of government get bigger or smaller?

[fisharmor]

And Regan simply slowed the growth....

Any thoughts or historical examples?

Get the idea out of your head that Reagan slowed growth.

All historical examples I can think of are like Rome: they are examples of collapse, not reversal... like the Soviet Union.
Arguably we had less government in the new US after the revolution, but that's also technically collapse of one government, even though the governments that took over technically already existed.

It's probably why I have nothing but hope for the liberty movement in the current situation. I think trying to change the system is probably futile. I think that the better goal is trying to get as many people liberty-minded as possible, so that after the collapse we can steer the conversation in the proper direction.

[dean.engelhardt]

And Regan simply slowed the growth....

Any thoughts or historical examples?

Oh boy. You might want to reconsider that statement.

YouTube - The National Debt Road Trip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5yxFtTwDcc)

[xd9fan]

Has the growth of government ever reversed?

This question gets to the heart of why I continue to buy gold.....

[Krugerrand]

Rome collapsed.

That was my first thought. Other good examples include: the British Empire, the Spanish Empire, Imperial Japan. More recently: Somalia.

[IPSecure]

Does the question include the combination of local, county, and state along with federal?

[JoshLowry]

There is a good youtube of Rand at a townhall type event and he explained how it took decades or maybe even a century to overturn some tiny tiny piece of legislation that a government had passed for Napolean or Hitler? (Don't remember the person in power at the time)

Point being is that it takes forever.

Anybody else have a link?

[awake]

Does the question include the combination of local, county, and state along with federal?

I guess it could be observed in a sub total. Some states may have shrunk so that Federal Gov. could grow...etc. And I will take the Regan comment back...

[idirtify]

There is a good youtube of Rand at a townhall type event and he explained how it took decades or maybe even a century to overturn some tiny tiny piece of legislation that a government had passed for Napolean or Hitler? (Don't remember the person in power at the time)

Point being is that it takes forever.

Anybody else have a link?

Apparently I was writing my similar point below as you were posting yours.

If the question is whether a big federal government ever shrank and stayed in power, I think the answer is obvious. NO. That’s because laws, once passed, don’t normally get repealed. I definitely know of no laws that have recently been repealed in the US. In fact, I don’t know if the ability/process to repeal laws even exists (esp once past SCOTUS). Instead, we are offered “bills” or “propositions” which appear to effectively reverse bad laws. Not only do they hardly ever pass, but even if they did they wouldn’t really reduce government. That’s because for every law created, government grows. So if a law is passed to control a bad law (instead of just repealing the bad law), you technically have an INCREASE in government. That’s why I’m suspicious about such bills. The government knows that more laws, no matter what kind, only benefit them. They probably just sit there smiling at all the people who think they can win by creating more and more layers of watchers watching watchers. I can hear them now: “well instead of actually ending the Fed, let’s just make a law to control them” (thereby creating another government office/agency). But wait…I believe I just described “audit the fed”.

Let me ask. Is there an actual legal process to repeal (totally eliminate) a federal law, once past SCOTUS?

edit: If not, maybe that should be the next (the only logical) bill; one that provides a process for completely eliminating a law (and fires all workers in those offices/agencies).

[raystone]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=186257

[mconder]

It seemed to reverse a bit during during the middle Roman times at the point where the Emperors respected the "natural bounds" of the Empire as viewed by Augustus. Strangely, the Empire was more prosperous during the time in which conquest was negatively.

[StilesBC]

No. Government is like a virus. It has only two states: growing or dead.

[hazek]

The answer is clearly NO. Why? Because in order to shrink government you'd have to get the right people into office and for that to happen you'd need the voters to understand first how current policies are wrong and causing all these problems and second which are the right policies and third who are the people that believe in them and will stick with them.


Basically you'd need to reeducate the whole nation which will never happen without controlling the MSM.


I mean just think about how your republic first came about. You had a few intelligent liberty loving people agree on the laws they wanted to live under and then they went around the country and educated people why those laws are best and then everyone voted for them.

The only way out of this mess is the inevitable total collapse a civil war that's most likely going to follow it.

[Anti Federalist]

Get the idea out of your head that Reagan slowed growth.

All historical examples I can think of are like Rome: they are examples of collapse, not reversal... like the Soviet Union.
Arguably we had less government in the new US after the revolution, but that's also technically collapse of one government, even though the governments that took over technically already existed.

It's probably why I have nothing but hope for the liberty movement in the current situation. I think trying to change the system is probably futile. I think that the better goal is trying to get as many people liberty-minded as possible, so that after the collapse we can steer the conversation in the proper direction.

That ^^^^

The only thing that reverses the growth of government is the overthrow or collapse of government.

[JoshLowry]

Basically you'd need to reeducate the whole nation which will never happen without controlling the MSM.

I think it's happening as we speak.

The internet is a communication revolution of nearly free, factual, and instant information on any subject.

[hazek]

I think it's happening as we speak.

The internet is a communication revolution of nearly free, factual, and instant information on any subject.

Yes and no.

While there is a lot of talk about how current policies are wrong and how the FED might be doing more harm and good and so forth you don't hear to much about the Austrian theory or about libertarian views which are both necessary if you want to reverse the growth of the government.

I hope you understand what I mean..

[JoshLowry]

Yes and no.

While there is a lot of talk about how current policies are wrong and how the FED might be doing more harm and good and so forth you don't hear to much about the Austrian theory or about libertarian views which are both necessary if you want to reverse the growth of the government.

I hope you understand what I mean..

I bet a number Republican candidates this year denounce keynesianism.

It's a battleship that will not be turned around on a dime.

[tremendoustie]

And Regan simply slowed the growth....

Any thoughts or historical examples?

Reagan didn't slow the growth at all -- he hugely increased the size of government.

[tpreitzel]

And Regan simply slowed the growth....

Any thoughts or historical examples?

Do you mean peacefully? ;)

[rp08orbust]

Reagan possibly slowed the rate of the growth.

He probably sped it up though. Jackson killed lots of indians. That's kind of like extreme government growth.


Someone has this avatar.
http://rlv.zcache.com/trust_the_government_bumper_sticker-p128270462526861069trl0_400.jpg

I'd love to have that as my Facebook profile photo. Can anyone whip up a version with portrait dimensions? (I.e., with the words in smaller font under the man's face.)

[NYgs23]

When Rome gave way to the Middle Ages and similarly when the Bronze Age empires (Egypt, Babylonia, etc) collapsed around 1000BC. Also when the Soviet Union collapsed.

I would also argue that the mid-19th century in Europe had a more limited government than the 17th century in most ways, with the end of mercantilism and so forth.