Living all of my life in Texas I have lived the American dream, by and large throughout the 60's , 70's , 80's , and on running a business in Texas was mostly free of government involvement,, however in the last few years state and local government has been becoming more and more intrusive in business,, on a local level many city governments are passing ordinances in regard to smoking, housing, pets etc, in the last few years in the town where I live the city government has passed tree ordinance's ,pet ordinances, etc, bans on smoking for city workers if one is caught smoking ,dipping, chewing, during working hours can lead to being fired, recently a ban was placed on selling pets in public places, and on the state level housing is being regulated by requiring builders to register with the state agency, in fact in one year no matter where you build in Texas ,houses have to be inspected and permits bought, in the past and at present only cities [in most cases] require permits and inspections, at present in the county area's [most counties] an individuals does not have to get permits to build but in one year that will end, so I guess I am asking how far do we go with government running our lives, it seems to me as soon as they began to encroach into a specific area,they then begin to take over more and more, the result I see coming from things such as this may be better build housing perhaps but a giant increase in the cost of housing and in the end the poor and middle class will be priced out of the housing market, in the last few years housing here has skyrocketed and I believe such controls may continue to drive people out of the housing ,,,,or maybe I am just old and hate change , how far do government controls go in the area where you live?
And all these changes are coming at a time when Texas is led by a Republican governor and a Republican legislature

It's odd. I live in Oregon which, by all accounts, has a relatively intrusive government. Yet I never notice it. Sure there are hassles when it's time to remodel the house or renew my tags at the DMV or whatever, but I just chalk it up to "part of the game". I never feel like the government has any active role in my day-to-day life.

When my father was alive, though, he absolutely felt oppressed. He wanted to do all sorts of things with the business, and was always afraid that the government was breathing down his neck. He was vocally anti-government, and used to give my wife a hard time because she was teaching school at the time. Those two used to butt heads because he would complain about lazy government workers, and she would counter by citing how she worked harder than anyone she knew (which was true).

There was a time during the mid-nineties when I listened to a lot of talk radio and read a lot of news magazines. Back then, I did feel like government was pretty pervasive. But when I stopped listening and reading this stuff, that perception went away. (Conversely, when I used to listen to a lot of NPR, I'd get riled up about the things they covered. Ultimately I gave up the news completely. I'm much happier now.)

It was interesting to observe the amount of government involvement there seemed to be in England and Ireland. The government seems to have a much more active role in daily affairs, yet nobody complains. (Or maybe they do, but I didn't get to see/hear it.)

Anyhow -- I can understand the John Galts of the world who are worried about too much government; I just don't see evidence of it in my own life.

As a Canadian, I have a hard time relating to US sentiments about oppressive government. Most of the provisions described above actually do a lot to improve society and to protect average people.

Canada has far more government involvement and, as a result, has one of the largest middle classes in the world. And our poorest people still have far more than the poorest in the US.

Thanks for both your replies, perhaps it is because of my age that I resent some of the things I listed, growing up in the fifties the big issue was democracy vs communism, good guy bad guy, the difference was very clear between the two systems, I can remember as a boy listening to adults talk and one time my Dad said "Some day the Russians and the Americans will have similar systems, at the time that sounded ridiculous ,but over time it has in fact became true, their system has drifted towards ours and ours toward the type they had, of course not to the extent of communism but government has moved to the left in this country ,
one example that irritates me is the "tree ordinance" my son has a rental property and last year a large tree that just dwarfed the house and had huge limbs towering over it had to come down but in order to do so I had to go to the code enforcement and they had to send someone out to check and see the situation and then I received the permit, a lot of hassle that didn't used to be, of course that are roles that government should play,keeping us safe from bad guys, good roads and feeding and helping those that can't take care of themselves but just how far should government go,, another big issue here is eminent domain, thanks again for your comments !

Things like permits and so on are in place to stop people injuring others. Not forgetting that stupid people attempt these tasks.

Government involvement in the UK is not particularly noticeable to me, although I know that the most restrictive legislation is usually blamed on the EU (whether that's correct or not). I'd be interested to hear what JD thought.

We have strict planning regulations for example, but they are popular because they stop developers building on green fields. This is a function of our crowded existance. There are similar restrictions on advertising and so on, mostly because people think that large billboards are an eyesore.

We have government provided healthcare, which almost everyone wants improved but not removed. The American system is often cited as how non-government healthcare doesn't work.

Plonkee: The U.K. seems very strictured to an American. I actually liked it -- things seemed orderly -- but if my father had ever visited the country, it would have made him tense. One obvious example: CCTV everywhere, at least in London. Is that new?

Zoning, permits, etc. are an example of how a few bad actors can spoil things for everyone. If we had a world where people didn't hold onto the juvenile attitude of "I paid for my property so I can do whatever I want with it," we wouldn't need zoning ordinances, building permits, or tree permits. But unfortunately some people view property ownership as a license to engage in activities or put up buildings that adversely affect their neighbors -- making their lives miserable, reducing their property values, etc., so rules and regulations have to be put into place and enforced. I don't want my neighbor opening a junkyard or a nightclub next to my house on our quiet residential street; without zoning and other regulations there's no way to prevent that sort of thing from happening.

Furthermore there are a lot more people around now than there were 50 years ago, so activities that used to be commonplace and harmless (such as burning leaves in the autumn) now have to be restricted. When 100,000 people burn leaves or other yard waste there are impacts on air quality and the environment that we didn't have to worry about when only 1,000 people were doing it. All you have to do is look at China, where air and water pollution are killing people every day, to see how out-of-hand a situation can get when a government doesn't have effective environmental controls.

Its been happening for a while. We are officially the most openly watched country in the world. It is perceived to reduce crime, and people don't mind it. Don't forget that there has been a serious terrorist threat in the UK for at least 35 years, and CCTV footage has been used in several successful terrorist trials lately.

I'd say that some of the orderliness that you get in the UK is merely cultural (like queuing for example), others is caused by the fact of our relatively crowded existence, as I said before (you can't avoid impacting on other people), some of the security stuff, like cctv and not allowing unattended luggage is a function of long-standing terrorist threats.

On the other hand, from a British point of view, US laws and punishments are generally seen to be too severe, particularly with respect to drinking alcohol and the relatively low speed limit. And our police are generally unarmed, and its quite normal to go up to a bobby on the beat and ask them what time it is, or for directions.

The biggest difference is that there seem to be more tribal identities (class / town / etc) in the UK and less emphasis on the individual. This is probably just a product of diverging histories (e.g. our early industrial revolution). Don't forget that we are culturally at least, an island of people who didn't leave to seek our fortunes in the colonies.

Removing the tree could be a hazard, if not done properly. It could also lead to soil instability, run off, erosion and other things that could affect your neighbours. It could even lead to costs for the municipality. Here in BC, before permits came into place, someone removed a bunch of trees along a property. Years later this resulted in a mud slide that took out a street and killed people. So now there are tons of costs for the community and region, not to mention insurance companies, medical coverage and home owners. $100 permit could have made a big difference.

I wouldn't buy into the belief that the party makes a difference when it comes to government interference. Republicans are just as happy to tell people how to live as Democrats. People in power will seek further power. It is the universal truth of ambition.

As for my locality I'm finding the absence of competition creating some similar situations in my community. The principal trash collector company has decided they will not take this or that based upon the fact that it is inconvenient for them, and there is little to no serious competition for people to turn to.

The absence of competition is a serious problem in any market based economy. Yes, I'm sure that eventually it will be worth another company/whatever competing, but I'm not sure that I want to wait that long.

As far as politics go, I believe that it has been shown that any first past the post system is liable to lead to a 2 party system. 2 party systems are bad because they can't both differentiate themselves and appeal to a majority. If I ever get the opportunity I'm going to vote for proportional representation (in the UK btw).

I have noticed that the UK has a lot less advertisement by the motorways. I was not aware that it is a result of laws and regulations. I have also noticed that there is a much higher level of surveilance, though I certainly haven't felt safer as a result. It sure didn't prevent that 11 year old boy from being murdered recently (big news item in the UK right now). There are continual criminal reports on the news and I doubt that if you put everyone under a microscope it will resolve the problem.

Plato was attributed to say, “Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws.”

No amount of government intervention, monitoring, or prosecution will prevent crime or thwart criminals entirely. There are deeper issues at work.

JD, I too used to listed to NPR (I still would if I had the time / availability) and I found myself getting all riled up about the stories. There is a lot of ridiculous stuff going on in the world, and the US seems to be a hotbed of moronic behavior, from both the general society as well as those who intend to rule them.

I think the difference in attitude between the US and UK (or even Texas and Oregon) is a good illustration of the precept that people will, eventually, get used to anything. That is why among many people, the surrender of small things to the government is so frightening. Right now they're banning smoking in restraunts and putting up cameras in "high crime areas". Once people accept that as normal, then putting up cameras on every block, and banning smoking in the home is a much easier step to take.

My personal feeling is that laws and government, like most things, are good in moderation, but grow to a point where they suffocate. The increase in fine-grained legal control, is also part of the reason that US culture is so law-suit happy. Yes, when someone makes a product that is dangerous and knowingly sells it in a dangerous state, they should be held responsible. But, on the other hand, being sued because some bozo bought a chainsaw and injured themselves because they didn't bother to learn to use it properly is silly. So we need more laws to replace personal responsibility.

I live in a fairly high-crime area of a major city, so I appreciate the need for effective laws and law enforcement (of which we seem to have neither here) but at the same time, as much as I hate cigarettes, I don't want the government telling me I can't smoke in my own backyard.

I think there are different balancing points between the interests of each individual, and the interests of all the other individuals in society. What one group of people accepts, another group won't.

In the UK, we probably err on the side of not causing harm/inconvenience to the other individuals rather than letting each individual do what they want. In general (not in specific cases necessarily) we have got the balance right for us. In particular, we wouldn't be happy if the American way of doing things was forced on us.

One of the things that's interesting to me is that we don't really have a libertarian political wing in the same way over here. People on the right of the political spectrum tend to want stricter laws and increased security, rather than smaller government. More people that are concerned with increased government intrusion are actually in the centre to left of the political spectrum.

I don't think governments have an interest in banning smoking in the home. Banning smoking in restaurants and bars is predominantly a worker safety issue: restaurant and bar workers in smoky environments are exposed to levels of carcinogens that would be unacceptable in most factories. It's also a public health issue for nonsmoking diners, although you probably wouldn't face a significant risk unless you eat out four or five times every week.

Smoking in the home is mainly a children's health issue. Government health agencies tend to discourage smoking in the home because there are many well-documented effects of secondhand smoke on children's health (see http://www.epa.gov/envirohealth/childre ... nts/e5.htm), but I doubt they'd outright ban it. Enforcement would be too expensive and intrusive.