Comments (28) (Please sign in to comment)

1. 

   Superfrog said, 6 months ago

   Absolutely.
2. 

   Linguist said, 6 months ago

   It’s the age old conundrum !
3. 

   rmacprivate said, 6 months ago

   A lot less Government. Saw where there is a discussion going on about whether the Government should look into addressing the issue of obesity in our country. Instead of looking to the government as a cure-all, how about instead a new movement called Taking Responsibility for Your Actions,
4. 

   russell5419 said, 6 months ago

   less govenment sounds wonderful.
5. 

   SUSAN NEWMAN said, 6 months ago

   It balances itself out, Shoe.
6. 

   rnmontgomery said, 6 months ago

   @macprivate
   Let’d hear it for the “Nanny State” – we now have a generation of adults who were never spanked as a child and grew up on video games. Of course they need some one else to take care of them.
7. 

   tom_wright said, 6 months ago

   rmacprivate – well said
   Susan Newman – unfortunately it doesn’t.

   ALWAYS less government. Too bad the voters didn’t see it that way.
8. 

   rmacprivate said, 6 months ago

   @Gweedo Murray

   Ahhh, the program got too fat?
9. 

   whmIII said, 6 months ago

   A lot less govt….if that’s possible, and a LOT less media.
10. 

    cmacres said, 6 months ago

    Oh yeah. Right on.
11. 

    TrapperJohn said, 6 months ago

    @rmacprivate

    A,K,A, the Libertarian Party. http://www.lp.org/
12. 

    exoticdoc2 said, 6 months ago

    The fallacy here is that there are only those two choices. I’d go for less gov’t in less of my life.
13. 

    rmacprivate said, 6 months ago

    @TrapperJohn

    It’s been suggested to me that I might like the Libertarian Party, but, I much prefer to be unaffiliated and indiscriminately rouse the Rabble.
14. 

    pschearer said, 6 months ago

    Less is better but least is best. That means ONLY police, military, and courts…the three functions necessary to the protection of individual rights. When government does anything beyond these roles it inevitably violates rights, putting it in conflict with its very justification. “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness…to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men…”. Jefferson had it right but not consistently, and without Ayn Rand’s moral argument, it couldn’t last.
    

    
    (What’s that you say? This is just a cartoon? Well, duh!)
15. 

    phritzg said, 6 months ago

    Eventually there is either going to be one world government or no governments at all. The multi-corporations and banks are already the skeleton of a global government and can force various countries to make economic decisions of their choosing and for their benefit.
16. Load the rest of the comments (13).