..... and they weren't looking for a Toll-free number to call.

AMEN!

The Founding Fathers were wealthy land owners. These were guys who could afford regular trans-Atlantic voyages and oversaw sprawling plantations. Many of them were deists who didn't believe in the Christian perception of God. They were definitely intelligent men who took huge risks and stood up for their principles. The bravery and significance of their actions cannot be denied; however, with all due respect to them, the country was only the size of 13 colonies, wasn't boasting a population in the millions, and didn't have an interstate highway system, railways, airlines, food safety regulators, disaster relief, the internet, credit cards, and worldwide embassies. Any form of government that's existed since 1783 has been bigger than it was when they started.

The question is, with such a big country, how do we decrease the size of government? The Libertarian in me really REALLY wants to drastically reduce it, but people have become so dependent on it, I fear a massive collapse of society [panic, unrest, riots, etc]. Is the answer bigger state governments? If the power was shifted to states, would that solve the problem or create more problems within the states?

Well, actually I said forefathers referring generally to our rank and file colonial ancestors, not founding fathers, who layed the foundation of our republic (the wealthy deist landowners to whom you referred).

Your points about the difference in population and infrastructure needed to support that population between then and now are well taken.

I honestly don't know how to begin reducing government, but right now I'd be happy if we just stopped growing it.

People talk about restructuring the corporations that had to be bailed out, and the same really needs to be done with Washington. The corporations failed miserably despite how much anyone was getting paid, what "talent" was in charge, or how many people were involved. They got richer without doing a better job, and no one holds them responsible to do a better job. In our government, the same two parties raise millions of dollars essentially for advertising rather than to support a cause or help the people they claim to be running for. Whenever they get elected, they spend way too much time worried about how to get re-elected. No matter how many different people they put in charge of departments and committees and commissions, nothing seems to get better, and the same people get positions of power no matter how bad they are at the one they currently hold. Would it really be that hard to streamline the corporations and government? If fewer people were in the chain of command, would it lead to more responsibility?

Perhaps, we need all of the additions to government, but we need fewer people doing the work and being in charge. Is it really necessary to take as many people and forms as it does now to accomplish anything? Look at the way we vote. Everybody has a different system of punch-holes and electronic boxes. Florida's ballots turned an election on its ear. In Canada, they have huge boxes to check with specific yet simple instructions on what's an acceptable mark, and their elections are over quickly. Maybe that kind of simplicity is the answer. We need to cut out all of the middle men, confusing paperwork, and hoops to jump through. It wouldn't be a solution, but it'd be a good start.

These issues are so important and the "current" land owners who don't believe in the Christian perception of God or the rights of the little guy are trying to fill unfillable shoes. I do believe in the states having the abundance of control and not the Feds. The politicians have dug an abyss so deep and so wide between them and their constituents that the American voter can no longer engage them. I believe our country is ripe for a powerful third party but unless we cure the "old system" virus, the third party will fail.