We constantly use the term that the government is just too large and overstepping their bounds..

So I ask you for your opinion on how much government control should there be?

Example of thoughts I would like to cover would include

[list]

Should there be a tax at all?

Are they to be in charge of our overall safety.. crime, national defense?

Infrastructure such as roadways? Airways?

Should they oversee things such as the legality of marriage?[/list]

I can't help to think the founding fathers never dreamed of the country we have become in sheer size.. so help them adjust the constitution appropriately.

This outta be interesting.

---

Tax? Sure. Minimal, but we have to fund the following:
Crime/National defense.
Infrastructure (roadways).
Bare minimum education.

'Legality' of marriage should be left to the churches/institutions to decide.

But that's basically it. All the other government funded BS? GONE.

I'm pretty sure that'll knock some of the debt off fast-like.

---

Crime/Nat'l defense can be handled very simply. Every family must either have a shotgun or a fully-automatic machine gun, OR they have to register as a Conscientious Objector and pay the appropriate tax for the other people who risk their lives to protect them. I'd cut defense by about 90%, arm everyone except for those registered as COs, and not get involved anywhere. Like Switzerland. They got it right.

I like infrastructure and I like running water and good sewage systems. Cut defense and suddenly, we got money for other things like good roads.

Legality of marriage? That should be church to church. If you can find someone who would marry you to your dog, more power to you. But you have to find someone to do it, even if it means driving 500 miles. Government shouldn't be involved in gonadal politics.

And yes, there should be a tax. National Sales Tax and State Sales Tax. That's it. No IRS. Nobody knows how much money you make. You don't have to waste hours and hundreds of dollars on accountants, unless you're a business.

Education, undecided.

---

I need to get to work, so I'll have to defer a longer response to later in the day.

1. Taxes. No income taxes. No federal taxes except excise taxes. (Sorry, zombieslayer, I disagree with you on the national sales tax idea.) State and local property taxes -- yes, though they don't have to be as high as people think.

2. Crime and national defense. An armed populace will minimize (but not eliminate) the need for cops and courts. An armed populace will protect the people from the state, but not from invasion. National defense should be limited to "protecting from invasion". Not protecting business from competition from foreigners. And certainly not serving as the world's police force. If Halliburton, Lockheed, or whoever want to specialize in worldwide protection and democracy-building services, fine. But they shouldn't do so on the taxpayer dime.

3. Infrastructure. Need government, yes; need federal government very little. Local roads, sanitation, these are local/municipal/county/occasionally state concerns. They are almost never federal ones.
Interstate highways are an exception, maybe. But if so, only in original construction. Maintenance and repair can and should be left for states to decide. And funded by user fees -- if you or your freight want to travel from Iowa to Indiana, pay a toll. Probably need state/local government for primary education.

4. Legality of marriage, etc. No. The purpose of government should not be to legislate morals. And if an insurance company doesn't want to give health insurance to same-sex couples or couples whose last name begins with an S, they should be able to.

IMO, we need a federal government to protect the full faith and credit clause, for protection of natural human rights, "interstate" crime, for protection against invasion, and, occasionally, to construct national infrastructure. Nothing else. We need state/local government for protection against crime, courts to prosecute crime and protect contracting, infrastructure, and primary education. Nothing else.

---

Following up:

I. How I see government's role re: education:
1. Primary: I would have state/local governments fund primary education through property taxes. But a minimum of 90% of all funding would be required to go to "reading (in English)" and "arithmetic" and "languages other than English" and "basic science". And the school day for ages 5-12 would be no more than 4 hours/day. Parents would be required to read with their children at least one hour per day, and would be required to pay a "primary education user fee" of $25/day for every day they fail to do so.
Lest you think "4 hours/day" isn't enough time....(i) look at all the other stuff kids do in school; and (ii) note that it only takes the average willing student about 100 hours to learn how to read.

2. Secondary: I would eliminate compulsory secondary education. I would eliminate any government supervision of curriculum. Each year I would provide the parent of every child aged 13-17 up a $5,000 coupon that they could use to help pay the "education contract" of their choice. They would not be required to use it, but if they don't use it, the coupon would have zero value. They can buy education that emphasizes the 3Rs, history, sports, music, God, free sex, computers and engineering, math, diversity studies, welding, or anything else. It's up to them.

3. Tertiary: I would offer each current adult citizen currently between the age of 20 and 30 a one-time sum of $100,000. In the future, children would be given this amount upon reaching age 20. (The sum given to people already having one or more years of "post-secondary education" would be reduced by $25,000 for each year already acquired.) This could be used any way the person wants, but it would be the last "non-catastrophe," "non-contract-service" government monies received by the citizen during his/her lifetime.

Any other government expenditure or regulation related to education would be unlawful without specific constitutional amendment.

II. The proper size/reach of government in general:

I would also impose the following rules:
1. "Emergencies" and "special cases" do arise that aren't coverable by "courts, police, national defense, and infrastructure." Anything other than what I've described in this post and the last requires a super-majority of 2/3 of the legislature (both houses in the case of the Feds and states with bicameral legislatures), and must have a sunset clause of 12 months. Renewal requires a super-majority of 75% for the first renewal and of 90% for all subsequent renewals.
2. Any government contract of more than $2 million shall be enforceable by specific performance. No cost-overruns will be paid, and no contracts of less than five years duration can be re-negotiated.
3. Other than street cops or detectives, military enlisted personnel or non-general officers, trial judges, and prosecutors, no legislative, executive, or judicial officer shall receive as compensation more than the per capita GDP of two years prior.
4. Other than the people mentioned in #3, or other positions specifically authorized by constitutional provision, all government goods and services are to be provided by non-governmental contractors. Any federal contract of $100,000 or greater must be published in national newspapers and on the internet, any state contract of $25,000 or greater in state newspapers and on the internet, and any county/municipal contract of $10,000 must be published in local newspapers and on the internet.
5. No elected official may serve more than six years in one office (4 years for the President of the United States or a state governor). No person may serve more than fifteen years total in elected office at any level.

---

Good stuff, Wade, but no, we couldn't be conquered. We got too much private firepower. It goes guerrilla and we all know who wins guerrilla wars.

Cops and courts will still be needed, but probably about 10% of what they are currently. If everyone's armed, then bad guys don't stand much of a chance. This is with the assumption that well over 90% of the populace are good people (which I strongly believe to be true - I've met tens of thousands of people in my life and there are only a handful that I don't like).

Good point about #3. Goes to show you know more of that than I do.

---