I prefer limited and small, effective government. Limited regarding certain powers, better left for the people and the States (provinces in Canada). But not the courts regarding the constitution. A few years back, on American talk radio programs, I heard about conservative Hillsdale College and the free publication Imprimus which means "in the first place" in Latin. Thus, I subscribed to the essays and adapted speeches. The linked issue clarifies small and limited government. The Constitution and Limited Government by Professor Edward J. Erler http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis.asp
Everyone is entitled to define terms as they want. I don't think there is a consensus on what "limited" and "small" mean. I would define limited in the Social Contract sense of specific delineated powers. That's how the fed. govt. was originally conceived under the US Constitution. But look what happened to original intent. The US Govt. was supposed to be based on limited powers. When I refer to small I mean a virtually powerless national govt. analogous to the US Govt. that existed between 1789 and 1860. I understand that the smaller the powers of the federal govt. the weaker and less effective it will be. That's the price that has to be paid to prevent the American left from effectively utilizing the federal govt. as the instrument of its ideology. The alternative is no federal govt., no US polity, and a series of successor states. Let future generations deal with those problems. In this era the power of the fed govt. is in and of itself the problem.
...The identification of limited government with small government was the position of the Anti-Federalists who opposed the ratification of the Constitution. Limited government, for the Anti-Federalists, meant government that was too weak to threaten the rights and liberties of the people. Small government was, therefore, both the necessary and sufficient condition of political freedom. Consequently, the Anti-Federalists preferred a purely confederal form of government in which the states assumed priority.... ...The task today is to confine the federal government to its delegated powers. The minions of the administrative state seek to destroy constitutional boundaries in their desire to replace politics with administration. This is tantamount to denying that legitimate government derives from the consent of the governed, or that limited government rests on the sovereignty of the people. Professer Edward J. Erler
I misspelled Imprimis in the original posting. The limitaion is of certain powers, but not defense, for example. Small, as far as I am concerned is what can be effective wihtout building bureaucratic empires. Professor Erler does clarify, for me, what the intention was. The reading of his speech takes a few minutes. It's worthwhile.
