Talk:Limited government

Goofy
"There is presently an ideological battle over the identity of the party, with interventionist and big government Republicans George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Rudy Giuliani pulling the party toward stronger central government and libertarian-leaning Republicans like Ron Paul advocating a return to the principles of limited government and non-interventionism."

There's some (a lot, imho) truth in this but it's not Wikipedia-grade content. --User At Work 18:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What about 'limited business'? Someone has to keep an eye on them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

POV tag
I added this tag because the whole article looks like a pamphlet, with no proper sourcing and statements such as the last one in the article. Not to mention the "righteous" opposition of the Anglo-Saxon model with the republican French one, or the reference to the British House of Lords. Dpotop 21:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Minimal government or just limited government
k_michael wrote: I'd like to add that I'm looking into whether "limited government" (a phrase not in the constitution itself) means *minimal* government, as is claimed in this article, or whether it *actually* means that the *powers* of government are limited, for example, the limitation placed upon the suspension of habeus corpus... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.91.220.179 (talk) 18:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Merger Proposal
To discuss, go here:Village_pump_(proposals). --JokerXtreme (talk) 11:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note an alternative proposal there to merge Small government and Limited government and of course mention both the libertarian and conservative varieties. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Tagging and Article Necessity
I've applied some maintenance tags on this article because, quite frankly, it reads like something submitted by a high school student in his US Government class. To be even more honest I'm not even sure if it would fly as an essay because there are no citations. I also get the feeling this article doesn't even really need to exist -- surely everything covered here is discussed at greater length in the Constitutionalism and Libertarianism articles. Not to mention all of the articles that already exist within the relevant categories. &#9875; nbmatt 01:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Globalize
This article reads as if written from Tea Party talking points, and contains little "theory of government" armature.

Although sources overwhelmingly deal with "limited government" as an American phenomenon, by "globalize" I mean that the article needs to deal more broadly with the concept as a topic in the history of government, not as if it's merely a modern political platform. "Limited government" turns up in the 19th century in a number of constitutional law reviews, so there must be scholarship dealing better with the history of the concept.


 * The Encyclopedia of Public Administration and Public Policy, for instance, manages not to sound hysterical (as this article does) in describing the relationship of "limited government" to protecting the rights of citizens: "American government is a form of liberal democracy. Liberal democracy rests on the principle of limited government. This principle assumes that the citizens voluntarily surrender part of their absolute power as sovereign to government so that government can make decisions for the state" (p. 181).


 * Here's a source that discusses limited government in relation to Indian Government and Politics: "A limited government is one that exercises its power subject to certain restraints. … The concept of limited government is identified with liberal values and refers to limitations on government in terms of individual rights to liberty, property, and equality of opportunity, and the separation of powers between legislative, executive, and judicial functions" (p. 88).


 * Hannah Arendt, On Revolution: "Constitutional government was even then," [that is, in the time of Jefferson] "as it still is today, limited government in the sense in which the eighteenth century spoke of a 'limited monarchy', namely, a monarchy limited in its power by virtue of laws. Civil liberties as well as private welfare lie within the range of limited government, and their safeguard does not depend upon the form of government. Only tyranny, according to political theory a bastard form of government, does away with constitutional, namely, lawful government."


 * Origins of National Interest: "Liberals believe freedom requires the equal protection of certain basic civil liberties and rights to private property and a limited government under the rule of law" (p. 111).


 * And interestingly: "Like classical liberals in general, classical liberal feminists favor limited government and a free market" (Feminist Thought, p. 35).

Although classic liberalism and libertarianism will diverge, a basic shared definition of "limited government" is not "do away with as much government as possible," but emphasizes government under law as a guarantor of civil liberties, and distinguishes between government and mere tyranny. I reworded the first sentence accordingly. Really, an encyclopedia article shouldn't be infected by the ahistorical hysteria of current politics. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that the article is so lopsidedly U.S. that I think we should just move it to Limited government in the United States and create a new article entirely on the general term and its applications to countries other than the U.S.. &thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 02:34, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Y-cleped Anonymous
This article never actually explains what 'Limited Government' is, instead it merely explains what it does. I would like this page to include an encyclopedia-worthy definition of 'Limited Government.' I would add it in myself, but I am incapable of providing an encyclopedia-worthy definition of 'Limited Government' at the moment. Posted 2/17/2014 - 8:03. 2601:7:7F80:2B3:5463:2EB1:BB3E:1B5A (talk) 03:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

This article is a joke, and borderline satire
This article is about a concept which is not legitimate. "Limited government" applies to an abstract definition of the two terms and is so vague it could mean anything depending on its application. Besides the fact of the concept of the page being absurd, the content of the entire article reads as an "Our Platform" page on a tea party website. The fact that this is on Wikipedia seems almost as though it is an attempted satire on tea party supporters. I move that this article be removed from Wikipedia. --Michaelwuzthere (talk) 21:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Limited Government is hardly a concept originating with the current Tea Party set. Limited Government is a key component in Classical Liberalism, and has been described as essential by any number of economic and political writer. A more appropriate action, is the one described above, where the request was raised to try and describe precisely what Limited Government means, not to delete this article. JusticeHarvard.org summarized John Locke's philosophy as, "In his Second Treatise of Government, John Locke (1632-1704) argues that legitimate government is a limited government based on consent, in which the majority rules but may not violate people’s fundamental rights." John Locke, Second Treatise of Government (1690) So Locke has a definite take on limited government. 10stone5 (talk) 21:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I find this previous comment offensive for it's lack of intellectual honesty. The user is free to express his opinion but not free to express false information. There is no historical concept of "limited government" but rather a long historical debate about "limited power of monarchs". -- Calif.DonTracy (talk) 16:00, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Ban this knowledge that opposes my ideas about freedom. Mrdthree (talk) 09:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree with this section's title: that this topic is a joke and satire. The idea of limited government is a twist on the original ideas of a limited monarchy. So it is merely a semantic trick of switching the words around to justify another weird feature of conservative ideology. The world had to deal for centuries with a monarch having unlimited power. From unlimited power then discussion evolved into limited power of a monarch. Once monarchy was controlled then ideas of limited monarchy had no further usage. Until revived by right wing fanatics by a clever trick of word play. The correct words should be "defined government". Most of the US Constitution is listing all the unlimited powers while the only "limited" powers are in the Bill of Rights. Intellectually, there is no justification for inventing a phrase like "limited government" and absolutely no connection to the discussions about limited monarchy. This whole topic is not only a weird joke but involves tricks of logic, of semantics, and even rhetorical tricks. I strongly suggest the topic of "limited government" either be removed or edited in a way that explains the conservative tricks involved. -- Calif.DonTracy (talk) 00:23, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Dubious
There are several confusing sentences in the lede. "The theory of limited government contrasts, for example, with the ideal that government should intervene to promote equality and opportunity through regulation of property and democracy wealth redistribution." is sourced to "Lansford, Tom (2007). Political Systems of the World. Marvell Cavendish. 31-32", but a web search for "Political Systems of the World. Marvell Cavendish" leads back to this page. It appears Tom Lansford may have written several introductory educational books (tertiary sources?) with a similar subtitle or series title, but I don't find one called "Limited Governnent". What is the theory of limited government? Who are the theorists?

"Limited government is a political paradigm under which the citizenry has significant power to influence the rule of law" surely this describes democracy, and we need a source where it is used in that sense. Similarly, "More emphasis becomes placed on local government and policy, giving more citizen access to participate." (Does this mean "more citizens" or "giving citizens more modes of access to participate"?) "and where government is kept to a minimal size." What does this mean exactly? I suspect in the US that it could be construed as lower public expenditure, which has no obvious relationship to concepts of either democracy or constitutional restraints. There are already articles on Small government and the theoretical edge case of Night-watchman state. "It also provides a stronger free market system so that the citizenry have more opportunity for real success." Again if it's not clear what any of these terms mean, and the sentence might as well be deleted.

On the other hand, in this sentence, and much of rest of the article, we have something approaching a definition: "In a limited government, the power of government to intervene in the exercise of civil liberties is restricted by law, usually in a written constitution."

It's not surprising if the conjunction of the words "limited" and "government" is used by different people to mean different things, but the article should clarify the differences between these three meanings rather than conflate them. Trying to link them together looks like a form of original research unless there are reliable sources. Actually, after the very confused first para, there might be the beginnings of a worthwhile article here that distinguishes between constitutional monarchy and absolute monarchy, at least if some of the material indicated by Cynwolfe were included. Any other uses of the phrase could be referenced and linked to democracy or small government as appropriate. --Cedderstk 08:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

another problem, of course, is the attempt to apply a modern concept, "limited government," to historical periods where the modern american corollary, "big government," would have been meaningless. as suggested above, the idea of limiting surely must be understood in contradistinction to the concept of "absolutus legibus." i might add, as well, that the notion of some ancient Western tradition of government leaving men to their private lives is nonsense. As Constant himself points out when comparing ancient and modern notions of liberty, the ancient world was one in which what we today consider private matters, were very much the concern of public officials. At any rate, this stub is woefully inadequate, but looks like a number of folks here could get to a rewrite, to an effort towards making it something more useful. Chris

So use it as a kind of verbal shorthand for opposition to government regulations that they object to. It is not used in this century by Democrats to express their political philosophy, but it is used often and widely by Libertarians and Republicans and various subsets, e.g. the Tea Party, to indicate their objection to government regulations and agencies that they perceive as interfering with "free enterprise". The regulations most reviled by them include those restricting degradation of the environment (EPA), protecting the health, safety and bargaining rights of workers (OSHA, NLRB), controlling the activities of stock markets (SEC), public transportation corporations such as airlines (FAA), and many other government “alphabet” agencies.

A far more extensive, well-researched and annotated article is in order. For now, it is my opinion that the current article should either be deleted or affixed with a warning note that it is in need of extensive revision for accuracy.Notapussycat (talk) 20:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that this article is in serious need of improvement. Is it so bad that you want to nominate it for deletion?
 * As for the current article being the viewpoint of a conservative, I don't see where you get that reading. If it actually went on about the topics in your second paragraph, you might have a case. And the article need not be up-to-the-minute on current day politics if it properly illuminates a historical political discourse.
 * It has sometimes been bipartisan efforts leading the way towards regulation reduction: efforts toward the CAB/FAA deregulation began during the Nixon administration and culminated in the Airline Deregulation Act during the Carter administration.
 * Globalizing the article would be most welcome.  &#8212;jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  01:52, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Limited government. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071020084330/http://www.fff.org/freedom/0291c.asp to http://www.fff.org/freedom/0291c.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 10 March 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 20:06, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Limited government → Limited government in the United States – Article as it stands primarily discusses the United States. It would be productive if we were to move this article and start a new article which explains the general concept and discusses other countries. We all know that limited government in the U.S. is notable, so it should have been its own article anyways. Please ping me when you address me. &thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 03:12, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Oppose as premature. If anyone wants to add info that "explains the general concept and discusses other countries", just add it above the header "Limited government and the United States". The article is not too long yet. If it becomes too long, the "Limited government and the United States" section can then be split off to a new article. Station1 (talk) 04:44, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Premature? The article has been around since 2004 and has always been only about the U.S. —  AjaxSmack  02:27, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The proposal is premature because nobody has yet written the kind of article that the nom proposes, or even has said they plan to. Without a new article the old title would just redirect to the longer proposed title. Station1 (talk) 02:49, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. —  AjaxSmack  02:27, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose as premature. The article's length is not an issue at this time. Those wanting to expand focus should just do so. -- Netoholic @ 04:30, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As per the current lede, this political philosophy is not special to the USA.  It was overt in Roman times, and surely has Greek roots, and probably the origin is lost to prehistory.  The article could use improvement to gain a more academic and international and historical approach.  It is currently a bit essayish.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:42, 15 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposed merge with Small government
Duplicate article – Lionel(talk) 09:45, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose as proposer lol. Limited government refers to government limited by law and restrained in its power e.g. enumerated powers. Small government refers to the size and scope of government e.g. expenditures. Similar but not the same. – Lionel(talk) 05:10, 25 June 2018 (UTC)