Sure, so long as it was done on a universal level. Allowing it to pick and choose which foreclosures are halted would be granting it authority over whatever conditions it used in the picking and choosing.

So you actually think ‘big government’ is protection of your property, physical and intellectual?!?!

How about you hand over to me all of your property? After all, you wouldn’t want to be seen as a proponent of ‘big government’ now would you?

If labor rights and environmental protection are “big government”, then surely IP is, too.

Also add most native Americans could care less about the name Redskins, they do have issues they hold dear that don’t get addressed like jobs and schools.

The left is all about the helping non-citizens as well as the .03028% of their minority group of the month choice. Even when that group is not asking for their help.

Axxowiz, I’ve already said I don’t care about the Redskins trademark being offensive.

Anyone understand Choctaw? What does “Oklahoma” mean?

offensive big government indeed

I am

But they do.

Fair enough and an interesting point.

But that was the basis for the trademark revocation. Government took upon itself (which is an increase in it’s asserted authority) the arbiter of offensiveness in trademarks.

I’m not interested in why the trademark was revoked. I’m interested in whether or not it makes sense to call it “big government”. Matt Bruenig is saying that it doesn’t make sense to call it “big government” and he is right.

I saw the same garbage from Carly Fiorina on the topic of patent reform. She was trashing the America Invents Act as government “inserting itself into” or “meddling with” or something like that when patent policy was created by a acts of Congress.

I agree. He does that when he’s had a nice cup of tea.

Motivation matters.

Tguns cool with me.

Is this like saying only intentions matter?

No. It is like saying if the motivation is to determine and control “acceptable behavior”, it is big GOVERNMENT.

Jameson, tea is for those of us who like to snuggle up on the couch with a box of hankies and watch Jane Austen movies…not that there’s anything wrong with getting in touch with their inner little girl, or that I would ever pick on someone for doing so. :slight_smile:

That’s a plausibly good criterion for judging when government/law is controlling, but no one was jailed, fined, or prohibited from doing anything. That seems to be important in most qualifications about “big government”.

You make a valid argument. I offer again “some not others”.

Important, not unique. Involvement makes it big.

I already addressed that with this:

Government has inserted itself in all sorts of areas it has no Constitutional business doing. this was just one tiny example (so it’s sort of meaningless to use it as the precipitant to decide what is “big government”) but there are countless such examples – some big, some small. Collectively they result in a BIG Government.

According to whom?

you’ve just inserted a new goalpost into the discussion.