what political/economic idea is this?

[flatpoison131]

whats it called when you want a controlled social economy but as well as strong emphasis on the individual and their rights? a smaller government with control to the people through lets say direct democracy but still a government to protect and control the interest of the people economically....

my dad say's im crazy and something like this would never work. haha

for example you have a society in which the government is actually the whole state socially (no/less (Representatives or leaders) everyone is active in government, and the rights of people are protected through essentially a bill of rights/Constitution and there is also a constitution against the power of economic growth meaning free enterprise is still attainable and possible but only if its in the interests of the people and follows the economic constitution for example laws against harmful products against humanity and the environment. and where business growth along with its marketing schemes and advertisement is monitored and power is limited at the business/corporate level. in example a person would have the right to open a big store like Walmart to become somewhat rich but it's only allowed to open lets say 1 in a state and that its marketing has to be closely regulated so that a company cant sell you harmful unnecessary crap you don't need and deceive you, these companies would also be taxed higher than workers so that they cant become unjust pigs.

the government would be here to only to provide defense and provide what the society believes is necessary education, small law force, military, a (monitored) as in a all sided truthseeking media/news

but overall peoples rights and beliefs are empowered to them for example no censorship, free religion, freedom of marriage, art, drugs,

i'm sorry if this idea sounds dumb, im new to government/economics.
and in my head i'm trying to see if different forms of government/economy are better than we have today.

and sorry if i got some political/economic term wrong or ideas confused or wrong like i said i'm learning

[BLAKE]

Libertarian statesmanship. Im not kidding at all look it up if you don't believe me,it's what Ron Paul supports and it's who I am voting for.

[David]

Fantasyland.

You can't have a controlled economy and freedom the same time. Those two ideas are antithetical to each other. You would have a government constantly running up against itself.

[Mr. Smartypants]

It sounds like you've stapled together a whole lot of ideas, but you haven't thought about it in a systemic way. You've picked and chosen all the features you want but a lot of these ideas are inconsistent.

For instance, you want a small, minimal government but there are all these regulations to protect against harmful products, against businesses growing too big, against companies selling 'harmful crap you don't need', etc. So where is all this regulation coming from? The GOVERNMENT has to do that!

Also, democracy requires something of citizens. It requires that they take the time to keep informed, that they are interested enough in the function of democracy to participate. The problem with democracy here in the US lately is that not enough people are paying attention, until things go bad, then they just vote for 'change'. A 'pure' democracy would require a much higher level of public participation. I would participate, and I'm guessing you would, in fact you've obviously done some considerable thinking about it. But most of our friends would say "Okay, you do that. Wake me up when the changes are all made." 8^P

People today HATE government. But government is necessary. Capitalism can't work without a certain amount of regulation. Crazy, stupid, imprudent de-regulation has caused a dozen major disasters in the last 30 years since Reagan got elected and convinced everyone that govt. was evil and that nobody should have to pay any taxes. Over-regulation is as bad as under-regulation, the art is in finding the right balance.