![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 26 February 2017. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"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)
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)
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)
To discuss, go here: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Merger_proposal_:_Minarchism. -- JokerXtreme ( talk) 11:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
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. ⚓ nbmatt 01:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
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.
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)
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 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)
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)
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. -- Cedders tk 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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
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. — Mr. Guye ( talk) ( contribs) 03:12, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, 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.
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 26 February 2017. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"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)
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)
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)
To discuss, go here: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Merger_proposal_:_Minarchism. -- JokerXtreme ( talk) 11:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
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. ⚓ nbmatt 01:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
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.
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)
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 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)
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)
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. -- Cedders tk 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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
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. — Mr. Guye ( talk) ( contribs) 03:12, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, 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.