E-mail Scott
Links to
other sites

2010 Archives
2009 Archives
2008 Archives
2007 Archives
2006 Archives
2005 Archives
2004 Archives
2003 Archives
Old Archives

Limited government vs. no government

By Scott Tibbs, June 2, 2010

When Governor Bobby Jindal was calling for action to protect the Louisiana coast, a Democratic state representative Sam Jones whined that Jindal was being "hypocritical" because he believes in limited government.

It is useful to make the distinction between limited government and no government, because there are some who do not understand that those who advocate limited government are not advocating that we abolish everything government does. Advocates of limited government (like Jindal) support exactly that: a government that is limited, not anarchy.

Conservatives generally believe in a federal government with a limited role, with most of the authority left to the states. Once again, limited does not mean nonexistent. Only the most extreme would argue for the elimination of the military, especially since national defense is a power specifically enumerated to the federal government by the Constitution.

In the case of the oil spill, you have a disaster that is threatening the coasts of several states, a situation where it is wholly appropriate for the federal government to intervene to protect the borders of the United States.

Of course, Rep. Jones knows this. He's simply lying by pretending to not know the difference, in order to play to the extreme Left base of his party. Jones' complaint has no merit because it is not honest. This type of petulant "criticism" could be expected from an anonymous troll on an Internet forum, but not from a member of a state legislature. Jones dishonored himself and his office with his childish and dishonest cheap shot.