[cpher]

Not sure how you define "improving the welfare", but it's certainly not the function of the USA govt to provide anything but what's defined in the constitution. You may disagree on a philosophical basis, but that's what the constitution is designed to do.

[rayiner]

The Preamble to the Constitution says:

> We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It is a fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitutional scheme to think that the Framers implemented "limited government." The federal government was indeed constituted as one of limited powers, but it was created against the backdrop of the state governments, which were conceived to have inherited all the powers of the British sovereign, limited only by their own constitutions.

You can invoke the Constitution to argue that some particular policy is better implemented at the state level than the federal level, but it is incorrect to say that this or that end is not the function of the federal and state governments taken together. We live, by design, in a democracy: the ends of government are whatever we want them to be, subject only to the limitations outlined in the Constitution.

[cpher]

Before you downvote me, at least reply. You wrote It is a fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitutional scheme to think that the Framers implemented "limited government."

That is exactly what the framers wanted from the federal government. Your following sentence directly contradicts your entire point. We're talking about FEDERAL POWERS.

[rayiner]

I don't downvote people who reply to me, and in any case HN doesn't let you do so...

In any case, there's nothing contradictory in that statement. "Limited government" is a term with specific meaning in libertarian and neoclassical circles. It refers to a society in which the government, which may be democratically elected, has a limited range of powers and can only pursue certain ends. In such a society, the majority cannot vote to pursue a particular end if it is outside the proper scope of government.

The framers did not implement "limited government" in the U.S. They created a limited government, the federal government, but only against the backdrop of the un-limited state governments. In the U.S., the "government" (between the state governments and the federal government), can pursue nearly any end that voters might wish to pursue. It is, together, limited only in scope by certain Constitutional rights. The limited nature of the federal government is just a tool to divide power between the state and federal levels.

[cpher]

Unless I'm an idiot but you just contradicted yourself or misunderstand-ed what you wrote. The Federal government is indeed intentionally limited in power. Why would you want it any other way?

I'm more of a Federalist--confusing name for an important concept. But I don't think that's what we're talking about. It sounds like we're disagreeing with what constitutes "general welfare" as you highlighted.

Ok, where do you draw the line in modern society? If you want to invoke the argument "what would the framers have wanted?" then what do you think they meant? Who can limit the definition of "general welfare" now. All you need is a bunch of loud people for any random issue, then it becomes a general welfare issue.

[rayiner]

When I used the word "government" in my original post, I was referring to government generally, not the federal government specifically. Thus, your point about the limited powers of the federal government is irrelevant, because by design the state governments have almost all the powers that the federal government does not. If voters wish to achieve a particular end, the government has the power to pursue it, so long as it doesn't violate any individual rights.

[cpher]

There is absolutely nothing in your OP that indicates you're referencing anything other than the Federal government (given the thread's context), and it wouldn't matter anyway. How is that irrelevant? At this point I have no idea if you're even writing what you intend to--I'm not understanding it.

Yes, the state governments should have more power--I assume that was your point.

[rayiner]

There's nothing in my OP that suggests I'm even talking about the U.S. much less the U.S. federal government. I was talking about democracies in general.

> Yes, the state governments should have more power--I assume that was your point.

No, my point is that your original statement ("it's certainly not the function of the USA govt to provide anything but what's defined in the constitution") is wrong. That might be true of the federal government, which is limited in scope, but that is not true of the state governments, which are not and were never conceived to be. The state governments can (try to) provide, almost without limit, whatever voters want them to provide.

[prawn]

For what it's worth, Rayiner's comments make perfect sense to me and in context of the broader thread. I wonder if you've approached them with a preconceived intent or argument and, as such, read into them?

[gone35]

You clearly misunderstood.

Since the State (in the academic sense of the word, with capital S) can comprise institutions at multiple administrative levels (eg state and federal), it is entirely possible to have a federal government with limited powers against a backdrop of strong state governments.

Indeed, some legal historians like William Novak have argued that many of today's widespread notions around the historicity of "limited government" and the early republic are largely revisionist myths [1].

[1] http://www.history.ucsb.edu/projects/labor/documents/TheMyth...