It can’t be money, it can’t be sex, it can’t be drugs.  Ruling power is all that it can be.
Wow.

This article shows how each nation under Communist or Socialist rule, can get rid of their despotic rulers, just as Tom Cruise and the Bourne Conspiracy would do it.

Imagine the wonderment if all nations were democratic.  Not hybrids but true democracies; no graft, no lies, no loss of freedoms, easier access to health care, border to border infrastructure improvements, jobs, safe environments and never another world war. 

We would need one umbrella Joint Chiefs of Staff, and “replacement trainee presidents and military officers” ready to go to replace those that will be removed by
this movie’s methods and movements.

We would also need to create a new UN cause the current one houses the enemy.

First, we ID the enemies.  They include:

a; China
b; N. Korea
c; Russia
d; Cuba
e; Myanmar
f; Vietnam
g.  other Asiatic nations?
H.  ALL Muslim nations
 
Then, we ID replacement president candidates. And we ask the new candidates to design a new constitution that has no religion in it–for 3 years, no religious
activities would be practiced. 

While religion has its place, as it is, Communist and Socialist nations use fake Christian or real Muslim policies to restrict partly or fully, human rights. 

Thus, all of those policies have to be dispensed with. Thus, no Muslim practices.  Their leader did, after all, gain converts by threatening them, not by loving them.

Of course, in short order, the spies within the Communist and Socialist nations will know that our umbrella group is meeting.  It will meet in a safe, covert house.

“Rules and policies” that are intended to last for a minimum of one month are to be created and then, studied by both US business consultants and constitutional law professors in the US and Canada.  These rules and policies lead the ex-Communist and Social nations  into federal and state constitutions.   This “injection”needs to be put into place as soon as the dictators are “removed.” 

Most of the middle east has, as its weakness, no leaders to step into the void and no democratic constitution ready to be put into use. That is the “killer.”  Iraq took years to put one together while the Iraqi and US military tried to keep the nation together. Absurd. A new constitution is both a band-aid and a surgical tool as well as a legal one; it must be “conditionally complete” and put into effect in minutes after the dictators and kings are replaced.

It is easy to understand why women, for example, will be hesitant to behave as if they have been freed since coup de etats happen frequently–one guy knocks out the current baddie and in weeks or months, he himself is knocked out by the recently deposed or by a new comer as the new guy is often as bad as the one toppled.

Also, our new laws will have to prohibit cultural processes–going after traditional males in the villages who might attack or at least reprimand the females for “going naked.”   [A father and his sons just executed a daughter for listening to American music!]

The biggest blunder Syria and other failing freedom fighters are losing is that they attack in the daylight and overtly.  That is dumb. Since the U.N. will not help the Syrian or Yemenese freedom fighters, the rebels must use military methods: split into squads, attach specific state and federal government buildings and staff.  Turn off water, electricity and phone lines. Use x-ray types of optics to see where in each building, government people are.  Make extensive use of feints; pretend to be one place while focusing on being elsewhere.  Go after the families of government officials and just kidnap them-do not harm them.  Do things quietly, covertly–under the cover of dark and then, scatter or at least, quietly and covertly, return to safe houses.

Also, give each dictator 1 week to leave.  On the eight day, all at one time, blow up the buildings where the kings and dictators do their dictating.  Depreciate their power. 

Use hit squads……never use jeeps to act like roving bandits. 

Each nation must act in concert with the others–so that the dictators and kings know they and their teams are marked. 
               
Sometimes, trusted advisors and body guards will help the rebels eliminate the bad leaders.  Those same guards will be given non guard jobs when the new constitution is put into place.  That will keep them away from the new power circles.

Imagine the economic benefits to the world of forcing out all the dictators:

If there was only a UN force that had teeth like the US army military does, it could do what Michael Renne’s “The Day the Earth Stood Still”’s robot force was designed to do; start a war, die.   If a government officer was accused of breaking a law, he-she would be removed immediately during an investigation [not belatedly] and held under house arrest. 

With only one world military, national budgets could shrink 95%.  Or there would not be any need for any military budget.

With radical religious people stopped dead in their tracks, “religious radicalism” would be stopped immediately.  Praying is one thing but only Christianity, Buddhism and the like would be tolerated because the other religions limit their members to behaviors outside what the law permits/restricts.

With only fairness and equity and all people protected, every nation’s infrastructure would be improved to match cities like Amsterdam, San Francisco, and other dynamic and clean, safe places.

People in every village of the world would have immediate access to health care.  Immediate access to all levels of education and could study any field they chose.  Women, in more than one half the nations today would be able, for the first time ever, to freely move around, hold any job they wished that was open, have any self-employment they chose, and did not need relative escorts. 

With these almost immediate changes, the world’s and nation’s gross national and domestic product would sky rocket.  It would increase because, before this transition, women in many cities and nations, are not permitted to make use of their abilities; they are restricted to being mothers.  Many Arabs who would stop sitting in front of their stores and go and grasp clients and have true businesses, would start earning 4x their current incomes.

Casinos would climb and leap in value in some cities and be closed in others as women and intelligent men would make superior choices on the use of both their living expenses and their discretionary funds.

Dirt roads throughout Africa and Asia would be converted to cement [if viable] and thus, perhaps faster movement.  In those African nations where slaves have been a primary employee source [with no pay] would immediately have to hire staff to do whatever was needed to be done.  Over 1,000,000 people who are slaves would be put back into the free market environment and be able to have free movement.

Those individuals who wish to be intimidating rather than use creative, ethical ways to start and grow firms will find themselves in prison for their life-times and will be given chances to handle high risk tasks for the prison system; being guinea pigs for medicine testing, test out and place, water flow electric generation systems, and settle on asteroids and perhaps the moon [like Australia was a penal colony, the moon would become one.]

Children in Central and S. American nation villages that have no infrastructure would have their villages either eliminated or brought up to city codes.

Street drugs would be removed from society and the Mexican and other nation’s drug cartels would be removed from society and placed with the prisoners on the moon or elsewhere. 

Places like Siberia and the Mongolian desert could be converted into totally safe and comfortable places to live with the rarely used or tried, plexiglas covered cities. 100% of the city would be covered.  All residents would live in a temperature controlled environment. 

World unemployment would disappear.  Intelligence would sky rocket.  Freedom would be the key as long as one’s freedom did not include physically harming others.

A revolution does not signify a smooth transition from years of servitude under a dictator whose grandiose egotism has finally ended a kind of despotism that included lackeys and mercenaries, as long as they were handsomely rewarded. One does not have to delve into the vagaries of politics to apprehend the sickening sense of uncertainty that a strictly internalized revolution might end in chaos, considering the likelihood of ideological divisions within the rank and file of rebels that have had no experience in politics other than their daily diet of malice and hostility in a region that knows no sanity.

For instance, the ouster of Egypt’s dictator has predictably resulted in that country’s invitation to Hamas to infiltrate the Sinai from where the terrorists have launched an attack against Israel. The Muslim Brotherhood, long considered to be a terrorist entity, has been upgraded as their party of influence. Can we be sure that Libya’s revolution would lead to a full-fledged democracy or another face-lift presenting yet  another undesirable image depending on whoever is in control?

     Being a dictator Mubarak is evil and the people he is oppressing have every moral right to rise up against him.  But they must understand thoroughly which leaders they should choose and what constitutes a free society.  If it is freedom the Egyptian people want, then Elbaradei is not the leader for them.  

     Elbaradei is also not the leader the American government should be supporting.  America’s government has a moral obligation to side with the freedom fighters against dictators like Mubarak.  Because Elbaradei also opposes Mubarak’s despotic rule, it looks like the Obama administration should help Elbaradei.  But it is exactly because of the obligation to protect the “freedom-fighters” that the White House ought to avoid supporting Elbaradei.

     Elbaradei’s opposition to Mubarak does not prove he is supporting the Egyptian people’s freedom.  He is not because he is receiving support from the radical jihadist group, the Muslim brotherhood.  If the US helps Elbaradei successfully overthrow Mubarak, the Muslim Brotherhood will establish an Islamic dictatorship over Egypt.  The Muslim Brotherhood calls this “cultural jihad”, which is the nonviolent conversion of a free society into an Islamic dictatorship through “cultural” means.  Sometimes the Muslim Brotherhood backs this effort with physical terrorism.

     The Al Jazeera news network has showcased radical Islamists openly declaring their plan to set up an Islamic dictatorship in every country around the world.  The Muslim radicals want to do this with Egypt (after Mubarak is gone) just like they are trying to do it with America, have done it with Britain (to a degree) and are trying to do it with other nations.

     If the White House supports Elbaradei, it would also be supporting America’s enemies.  That is because the Muslim Brotherhood has been waging cultural jihad against America and supporting anti-American Islamic terrorism.  Supporting Elbaradei (and the Muslim Brotherhood behind him) is bad for both Americans and Egyptians.  

     Earlier it was noted the Muslim Brotherhood, through Elbaradei, will replace Mubarak’s dictatorship with another one.  Since the French Revolution we know this can potentially happen—to the detriment of the Egyptian people’s reach for freedom.

     The French Revolution failed because the revolutionaries were susceptible to mob violence, lacked sufficient philosophical knowledge of the nature of a free society and had corrupt leaders like Maximillian Robespierre manipulating them into contradicting their ideals (i.e. “liberty, fraternity, and equality”).  Because of these factors, King Louis XV1 th’s authoritarian regime was replaced with another just as bad or worse.

     To prevent this from happening to Egypt, the Egyptian people should have a rational philosophy about liberty and rights, oppose the Muslim Brotherhood and choose their leaders more carefully.  If the Egyptians hastily get behind Elbaradei, they will be unwittingly supporting the Muslim Brotherhood’s despotic goals.  Elbaradei is sympathetic towards the Muslim Brotherhood and the later is using him to further their agenda. 

     Elbaradei’s sympathy towards the Muslim Brotherhood can be seen in Phillip Stewart’s and David Morgan’s article, “Elbaradei urges US to abandon Mubarak.”  In the article, Elbaradei is quoted as saying (about the radical Muslims), “They are no way extremists. They are no way using violence….This is what the regime sold to the West and to the U.S….”  Elbaradei’s statement is false and dishonest. 

     All the evidence from multiple sources the reader can read online or at the library demonstrates the Muslim Brotherhood’s radical cultural jihad and terrorism activities.  Stewart and Morgan’s article also revealed that Elbaradei wants the Egyptian military on his side.  Of course, this will place the military under the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood.  Therefore, Egyptian soldiers should beware of who their masters will be.  The military should support the people’s push for freedom against Islamofacists and Mubarak. 

     Although America should not support Elbaradei and the Muslim Brotherhood, neither should it support Mubarak.  That is because Mubarak is despotic and must not be “protected” from overthrow by the Egyptian people.  It is the Egyptians’ responsibility to reject leaders like Elbaradei who verbally promise Freedom but who will deliver another type of despotism once Mubarak is gone.   

     If any US involvement is necessary at all, it should be to weaken the Muslim Brotherhood’s agenda via overt and covert means.

It would appear, though there are other possible contenders, that the curious invention of the term “limited government” represents the possibly greatest political oxymoron ever manufactured in the entire historical discourse of political philosophy or political science; and, political epistemology is surely involved. 

Realistically, it is of the very nature of government to expand, so how can the questionable notion arise that it can be really limited?   Most likely, it is an expression of an ideal or aspiration that inclines toward the grand hope that whatever political order exists may resist the tendency, held here to be natural to an instrumentality of power, to grow and grow until it may reach the practical limits of its greatest extension of power — unless, perhaps, resisted by a countervailing power.

Origins of the Term

Obviously, what is referred to as classical Liberalism had originally developed the odd notion of limited government, as in the saying that the government which governs least governs best; this kind of phrase has been, e. g., attributed to Thomas Jefferson, though, in fact, he never said something that simplistic.  Some words that he wrote may seem fairly close, however, to the basic sentiment that is then generally expressed as such. 

Today, and for about a century or so, those denominated as conservatives, in this country, have usually adopted support for the idea of limited or circumscribed government that stays basically, for instance, within the limits of the US Constitution; this is, therefore, as to its then original epistemological understanding as a political charter of restricted government.

However, as classical Liberalism had mutated, from the late 19th into the mid-20th century, into modern Liberalism qua Socialism (AKA collectivism), it became the case that Conservatism, in America, had functionally changed into what, mostly, used to be considered classical Liberalism.  Good related reading would cover such interesting books as James Kalb’s The Tyranny of Liberalism: Understanding and Overcoming Administered Freedom, Inquisitorial Tolerance, and Equality by Command.

Government, if it appropriately consists of true governance in noted terms of providing that needed balance between liberty and order for yielding an ordered liberty qua liberal order, is supposed to be a truly positive thing; thus, this means that, theoretically at least, the useful growth of government ought to be a really good occurrence because more government then equates, logically by definition, with the provision for a more ordered liberty, the rational and wise protection of civil social freedom, under law. 

The civil rights and civil liberties of the governed are, moreover, then to be better and better rightfully secured against any ruthless, tyrannical, or arbitrary power by the warranted authority that rightly resides in the proper government of law, not of the arbitrary regime of men.  Therefore, the impressive theory sort of sounds great to those who do support limited government as, in effect, meaning good government, meaning, essentially, a polity designed to rationally maximize requisite liberty under law.

Historically, the political idea of trying to control the power of government became more vivid, for the Western peoples, in the 16th to 18th centuries, in terms of a growing hatred toward such concepts as the Divine Right of Kings, Erastianism, and Enlightened Despotism; the former two were, increasingly challenged by the old Liberalism and the last named had once been found mostly acceptable by that ideology, meaning when, e.g., the French philosophes could, thus, decide which monarch might be supposedly worthy enough to be so pleasantly despotic toward the common people.    

This was while the favored autocrat was, of course, still intelligently pursuing the generalized goals of the Enlightenment in known terms of, for instance, secularizing the society, weakening the Church, and rationalizing the then resultant life and culture of his society; the last point being, thus, accomplished reasonably through either the immediate or progressive eradication of custom, tradition, and rampant superstition that all seemed, more or less, to be superstition to an enlightened or liberal mind of the 18th or 19th centuries; that was the basic direction or attitude of thought to be found on the political or ideological Left concerning the need to destroy anything thought to be reactionary.  

Important reading would include Erik Maria Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn’s Leftism Revisited: From De Sade and Marx to Hitler and Pol Pot, Heinrich A. Rommen’s The State in Catholic Thought and his The Natural Law, and, for some amplication, E. B. F. Midgley’s The Natural Law Tradition and the Theory of International Relations.

On the other hand, the political right also vigorously opposed the centralization of the growing power of the nation-state, as did, e. g., Juan de Mariana who had prominently stressed the good defense of proper localism and the ancient rights and privileges of a society of social estates.

This was because it was much easier to maintain smaller pockets of local free towns and villages versus the ever advancing consolidation of the State that then meant the enlarging enhancement of its war-making capacities, extortionate levels of taxation, and the truly obnoxious stranglehold of the many bureaucratic servants of the monarchies upon the nations, moving into the modern age; the peoples involved, in terms of a progressive modernity, were to be, thence, dominated by these nation-states and their aforementioned political, economic, and military consequences. 

In France, as a more particular historico-political example, the regrettable crushing of the aristocratic and other factions of the Fronde civil wars, in the 17th century, finally had the sad consequence of completely destroying any independent and viable power that could have had developed the needed capacity to then effectively stop the antidemocratic, bureaucratic, and despotic trend toward the observed centralization and, moreover, notably continued autocratic development of the French monarchy.

By the late 18th century and into the 19th century, therefore, what had congealed, finally, into the idea of having limited government was the political result of people, in the United States of America and in Europe, deciding that traditional monarchical regimes had amassed too much power.

In America, this lead to the great and brilliant success of the American Revolution that significantly produced the US Constitution in an attempt to control the exercise of power by government in the hope of producing a limited government; one of the major purposes of a written, as opposed to a unwritten constitution, is the valiant attempt to actually specify the political circumference of what and how much governance ought to legally, constitutionally, exist for this country; and, again, this is also a matter of political epistemology. 

The French Revolution, on the other hand, as Hannah Arendt and others had correctly pointed out, was not a true revolution because it merely furthered the authoritarian tendency and natural systemic flow of the despotic orientation of the political actualities, inherent already, well within what had been the autocratic, French monarchical regime.  

Limited government was, thus, definitely not the noted result of the production of that “revolutionary” regime, which was actually even more reactionary than what it had replaced in terms of rampant tyranny, injustice, corruption, and oppression; it lead, predictably, to the expected victory of a Caesar, meaning Napoleon, who, later, had crowned/styled himself to be an emperor through a vile form of democratic despotism, so greatly similar, in many (not all) respects, to Enlightened Despotism, of course.

America Considered As a Test Case

In the USA, however, the last attempt to try to effectively stop the unfortunate consolidation of a nation-state regime was the noble and righteous effort of the War for the Southern Confederacy, the War for Southern Independence, that later ended up being totally incorrectly denominated as the American Civil War. 

It was not at all, in fact, a civil war; when two or more parties seek the control of the exactly same government for ruling a nation, then, by correct definition, that is a civil war; the South, the Confederate States of America, however, did not ever seek to rule the North; it just simply wanted full independence as a separate new nation. 

Strangely, the War for Southern Independence was, uniquely, among the only one of such wars of national liberation not enthusiastically hailed by most of the progressives and liberals of the 19th century; this was, moreover, even though both the North, for over 80 years, and South were slave-holding powers, ironically and factually, at the beginning of that conflict.   As a then most prominent exception in the 19th century, Lord Acton, an outspoken advocate of political liberty, clearly saw the true and undeniable justice of the Southern cause of independence.  

Good reading, on this subject, would include:  The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War by Thomas J. DiLorenzo; also, Thomas E. Woods, Jr.’s The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History and his 33 Questions about American History You’re Not Supposed to Ask; and, H. W. Crocker III’s The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Civil War.  Many people, thus, need to learn more about the War of Northern Aggression.

That extremely terrible conflict, due to the immoral unconditional victory of the Union, had, therefore, forever substantially revolutionized the USA and, furthermore, set it on the easily observed course of continually strengthening the national government, today just simply called the Federal government, at the expense of the governments of the once sovereign states. 

The transition of America, due to the War Between the States, into then logically becoming, increasingly, a European-style nation-state, not sanctioned anywhere at all in the Constitution by the way, has had definite political, social, cultural, economic, and other direct and indirect consequences; and, for instance, prominent neoconservatives such as Mark Levin, author of Liberty and Tyranny, are very staunch defenders of the historical and political cause of the Union who, therefore, do greatly revere the memory of Abraham Lincoln.

Crescively, decade by decade, it then became more difficult to try to keep to a limited government as the power and extended reach of the Federal government, especially during the 20th century, became so practically unbounded; this is as then compared, logically, to the political idea of a written constitution, thus, defining a limited government.   Into the 21st century, therefore, it is almost toally forgotten that federalism once was supposed to mean the legitimate practice of having a federal, not consolidated, government that had consisted of the bilateral governance of a national government acting with and through the coordination of the governments of the states.

Today, the term “limited government” can only rationally be looked upon as a silly joke, an archaism, in that the evident and historical force of statism and its twin called tyranny is the prevalent norm that regularly dictates the fundamental course of basic events for this country, not the old or archaic notion of free, constitutional, republican government qua legitimate governance.

The Constitution had, long ago, become a very plastic or protean thing, a “living document,” that can easily grow the prolific power of this nation-state to any imaginable limits and beyond, if ideologically-progressively thought needed; the welfare-warfare State, especially since the 1930s, therefore, knows no real or empirical bounds to its logically inherent expansiveness with its devotion to the American imperium structured firmly around the entire globe.  Into the 21st century, therefore, the massive growth of a highly interventionist Federal government, spending public money at a very fantastically prodigious rate, would seem to be, thus, a logical result of the collectivist ideological spirit that naturally impells such activity.

And yet, wasn’t this all quite reasonably predictable (in retrospect)?   How so?   A government thought to be or, perhaps, said to be limited would seem only to actually be the a.) farcical effort at semantic or polemical exaggeration in that any government truly limited could not, by definition, realistically be then accounted a government at all, or b.)  if limited, it would quite soon come to the “suicidal” conclusion that such a political order could not justify itself to itself, through the both integral and logical self-acknowledgement of its own inherent and proclaimed limitations as such. 

Can Government Really Be Limited?

In short, therefore, the obvious empirical case would rationally appear, on the surface at least, to be a completely absurd contradiction and perpetual paradox; this is, moreover, because the two words, as a united term, would seem to be at perpetual and needful war with the meaning of each other’s intent and nature.   If it is, in fact, a true government, it could not be really limited in its demonstrable nature and intent; if it is said to be, in fact, limited, then, equally, it would have to logically then cease to be what it claims that it supposedly is, as to the explicitly defined actuality, represented by the set term: limited government.

Government, by definition, claims to itself the sole monopoly of (rightful) force over a given territory or area held to be under its control as, thus, being defined as a sovereign state, meaning almost always conceived as a nation-state situation; any limitation placed upon political sovereignty was to be considered within the nature of a country’s actual constitution and not to be determined by any external sources of power, though kept within the sphere of classical Natural Law teachings. 

Ideally and in terms of cognate political right, the given authority granted to a polity by a constitution, written or unwritten, and supposedly freely consented to by the people of a country yields thence to the sovereign state the then logically associated political power to exercise reasonable and legitimate force; and, furthermore, this is then both within its own territory and, moreover, any requisite self-defense against any (foreign or domestic) aggressors. 

The illegitimate exercise of power without authority to do so is, however, unlawful and unwarranted force, meaning, e. g., despotism; it is, thus, the illegal usurpation of power concerning what is thought to be a legitimate appeal to legal and constitutional authority as to political right, which ought to be the logical basis for what is thought to be classified as limited government.   And yet, in the real world of men and nations, this has been rarely the observed case in fact. 

Tyranny, despotism, autocracy, totalitarianism, authoritarianism, Bonapartism, Peronism, etc. has usually been the basic historical norm for all of recorded time; but, it can be then correctly stated that free government has been, in fact, the truly notable exception to the general rule of an oppressive rulership over a country, region(s), or an entire empire; freedom is just an aberration or known rarity; oppression has been and is the typical norm; it is, thus, a natural condition regarding how people have themselves organized, within political structures, on a vast scale.  

Limited government, in its impossible empirical essence at any rate, needs then to be rationally relegated to the political philosophy category of a lovely political fiction; no actual government really worthy of the concrete designation as such has ever or will ever, therefore, be oddly assigned this quite absurd classification.

Conservatism Examined v. Limited Government As an Ideal

Another interesting comment, which would not occur to even the majority of political scientists, is that this presents an important dividing line forever separating American Conservatism, a form of classical Liberalism, from the thinking of the traditionalist right.  Conservatism largely upholds many fictive ideas, concepts, or aspirations that do not usually correspond to the real world in their idealism that must logically lead to a dead-end result; thus, conservatives, normally, support politicians who wish to uphold the welfare-warfare State, though they might claim, of course, to be otherwise disposed.  

But, one can empirically see, practically speaking, that electing Republicans has not really, on average, meant any absolutely significant reduction of the basic and observed trend toward Big Government; this would cover the period from the 1930s all the way up to the present, of course.

That legendary and noble paragon of great conservative virtue to the extreme, Pres. Ronald W. Reagan, when given the noted and splendid chance to truly make a definite empirical statement regarding his understanding of Conservatism, as to the idea of limited government, had then interestingly, of course, ended up further empowering a government agency:  Federal Emergency Management Agency (April 1984).  

In the previous year, Reagan had, moreover, signed Executive Order 12432; this then gave both the Department of Commerce and the US Small Business Administration, in consultation with the Cabinet Council on Commerce and Trade, extensive authority to manage the establishment, maintenance, and further intensification of federal minority business enterprise programs.   Yet another conservative politician, Pres. George W. Bush, when he was on the verge of his leaving office, had revealingly stated: “I’ve abandoned free market principles to save the free market system.”  

This quite extremely bizarre kind of illogical and greatly perverse thinking (as in, e. g., analogously, the purported need to kill someone for the then most noble sake of preventing him from being murdered) is so truly worthy of him, and many other prominent conservatives as well who have aided in creating Big Government.  

If Bush were, in fact, profoundly intellectually cognizant at the time, he would then have quickly said, oh no, what the heck did I just stupidly say?   Such an amazingly incoherent statement will, deservedly, go down in the preposterous and solemn recording of the annals of notably outstanding and ludicrous presidential trivia.  Q. E. D.

It has been politically well said, time and again, that the Democrats normally help to install the mostly unwieldy parts of Big Government; and, then, the Republicans, generally, come to the rescue by finding various ways and means to finance, regularize, systematize, and manage the welfare-warfare State to make it work, as reasonably as may be possible.   This is certainly why, therefore, the traditionalist right as well as Libertarianism rejects Conservatism as being the noted handmaiden of Big Government. 

The real question, upon an intensely close examination, is not so much the relative size of government that matters per se; what is greatly more indicative is what the existing government has been organized and directed to actually do both as to its existence and, moreover, what it empirically does to or against its people.

An apt illustration in the field of taxation can be usefully given as an analogous matter; the percentage of what the government takes in taxes is the true cause of what can logically result in over-taxation or confiscatory taxation; thus, the mere effect is the system of taxation, whether a progressive tax, flat tax, value-added tax, etc., that is, in effect, a mere diversion to simply take the minds of the people away from the actual percentage of tax being extracted.   

Thus, e. g., Dr. Walter E. Williams, a prominent free-market economist, carefully reminds people that the method or system of taxation is not really at all the extremely critical question regarding taxation; as examples often used, a flat tax v. progressive tax is, therefore, not truly the primary and critical issue in such a consideration or debate.   Intelligent minds are, moreover, able to then correctly and properly distinguish cause from effect.

If, therefore, a theoretically large political establishment were guaranteeing more than just sufficient prosperity for the citizenry by, e. g., allowing a true free-market economy to somehow really flourish unmolested, then such an expanded governmental presence could be then uniquely hailed as good government, not Big Government.  

The true problem is, as Dr. Milton Friedman had often tellingly remarked, if the American people ever got all the government they had paid for, they would be then living under a police-state tyranny.  Informed intellects, as can be seen, sagaciously do realize that the genuine issue is not an attempt to, supposedly, somehow achieve the fictional or utopian goal of a limited government, as desired by conservatives.

Conclusion

As understood, so correctly, by the political supporters of the traditionalist right, government qua governance, as rightfully pertaining to the basic and needful things that it ought to do, is what should  be properly stressed. 

The original understanding of the original purpose of the Constitution is what can be properly referred to as the boundaries of what the Federal political establishment refers to, meaning as to its noted and legitimate responsibilities of a limited, meaning described/written, nature.  And yet, the real question or issue at stake ought never to be simply put as being limited government versus Big Government per se.

For instance, since nothing in that document authorizes a Department of Education, then it can be known, by the definition of a written constitution, that the national government has, therefore, no legitimate business in the field of administering matters pertaining to national education. 

The Preamble, explicitly, states the formal basics, as to the direct political principles involved, of what that political charter is only supposed to cover and nothing more as to the objects and ends of its noted grant of power.   And, The Federalist Papers explain, among other appropriate sources, how the Federal government was properly constructed to operate toward the given goals of a constitutional kind; Publius (James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay) details, therefore, the political epistemology requisite and needed for a free, constitutional, republican government of laws, not men.

Thus, e. g., being “for or against” limited government is a gross absurdity and, moreover, not a real political question at all, except, perhaps, for some abstractionizing political theoreticians.  The authentic Tory attitude is, forever, well expressed by Alexander Pope, who wrote:  “For Forms of Government let fools contest; whatever is best administered is best.”

During the Ancient China period, the Empower would be the leader who would lead his country more as a Despotic Dictator rather than an Enlightened Monarch in the way of life for his people. This becomes evident when one looks at the emperor’s un-surpassing power in both the economic and agricultural management standpoint.

Deposition could have first occurred in the in the Hsia Dynasty (2200-1750 B.C) when Yao the Emperor, needed a successor to control the floods that burdened his people. His successor would soon become Shun. Shun was picked by Yao because of his filial piety to live in harmony. Although Shun can be credited for enlightened leadership qualities in reality he was a very harsh leader to his people. Punishments included using the whip, stick, and fines for punishments instead of have the offenders be dealt with without Corporal Punishment. Alternatives to Corporal Punishment could have included fines, community service work such as community farming or short term jail time

Shum’s leadership was very enlightened, but at the same time he was ultimately the ruler who could put them to death if they disagreed with his leadership. After Shun, his successor was Yu, who founded the Hsia Dynasty, the first Dynasty.

This was the first part of where Oriental Control and Despotism meet. Although water control was limited Yu lead a large expansionism flood control and irrigation by using thousands of Chinese people. During the Hsia Dynasty, Emperors employed mass labor on the people of China. The tasks were broken into four primary groups. These types of work included working for the military, farming, construction workers, and textile labor.

Textile labor included tasks like weaving silk threads by hand to make fine clothes for royalty. Other tasks included public works such as walls, large construction, and enlarging of canals for Agriculture. In this period casualties were very nigh if you were selected to be in the military because it was not uncommon to have mass warfare killing hundreds of thousands of people in one single battle. Common soldiers were simply treated as pawns by military leaders.

The Shan Dynasty occurred during (1750-1040 B.C). Although the Shan Dynasty believed in resonance, he was ruthless when it came to battle. Shan often made a whole family fight in battles because he believed they would fight better with each other. His philosophy also employed through Ying and Yang. Shan believed that women should have a lesser role in society than men. This was evident in all aspects of life. Women were not respected as equals and as such did not have the same opportunities.

After this period was the Chou Dynasty (1040-256 B.C). During this period Chou would try to repair the country from the corrupt Shang Dynasty. Chou would try to employ a feudal system but would eventually lead into the Warring States Period (403-221 B.C). During this period corrupt emperors caused the country fell apart into a chaotic and constant warlike period.

This was followed by the Enlightened Qin Dynasty, who unified the country and built the Great Wall of China. Although this has been called the greatest man made structure this period eventually fell due to exhausted people.

Even though the country of China had enlightened ideas through Confucius and other religious leaders, China was Despotism rather than an Enlightened Monarchy because of how the emperors treated the people and their way of life.