Which government is smaller?

My guess is you're talking about the issue of birth control being included with health care. Rationally yes, stomping on the feelings of the 2% for the greater good is not only prudent, but is less intrusive of the government to do. Furthermore that same 2% is against gay marriage and a host of other things that quite specifically require more, bigger government if they get their way. Even if my guess is entirely off. I think the one that always businesses to to offer whatever they want even if denies people basic services is the smaller government. While we might not agree with what the business does, it requires no government. On the other hand, this other option may seem more favorable. I'll side with the side I generally dislike and agree that this isn't actually for the government to decide and legislating it would require the government to take action. I believe what you've done here is actually exemplify in a greater fashion than I ever could the problem with government and the peoples expectations. This now common mindset is quite frankly the proliferation of big government. People no longer expect the government to mediate, they now feel that the government is responsible to do for them what they should be doing for themselves, to the detriment of everyone. It's called a boycott. Unfortunately our now spineless society can no longer do anything for themselves and wants the government to do it for them. It's quite frankly disgusting and ruining our entire society. The worst part is most people are to ignorant to realize they pay for it either way. Either they buy a better product, or they pay the government to enforce a law and then pay more for the service or product, but force people who don't want the service to pay for it too, and force everyone to pay taxes for the legislation. Quite frankly I see a government who forces this law as big government. About 20% of Americans don't even have health care and of those that not of all of them get it through their employers. So it's really a big lie. It's giving 311 million people health care, nor does it regulate all the businesses in the country as many of them don't offer health care. It forces a tiny change that makes health care once again cost more, women who have health care and don't need birth control are going to suck up the supply just because it comes with their package while poor women who need it will no longer be able to afford it, and more people are going to lose health insurance because they cost will yet again go up even if it's falsely justified. It's not only big government it's bad government.

"Is a small government - one that allows businesses to offer anything they want in any combination they want even when it means denying the people who use their products the opportunity to basic services?" Yes, but who is being denied the opportunity to basic services in your example? If it's the birth control issue, all they are being denied is FREE STUFF. My food, water, clothing, and home aren't free. Does that mean I am being denied an opportunity to basic services? "Is a small government - one that says if you sell this product it must have this feature available whether th epeople who use it decide to use that feature or not?" No, that is government controlling business and thus is not small government. Government force such things because they have a vested interest (campaign contributions) in making sure that the company providing the "feature" profits off the regulation. "Anything that actually affects a group that is less than 2% of the total population must be smaller than something that affects 100% of the population." That's a short-sighted and incomplete analysis. The issue at hand involves a president blatantly violating the US Constitution and violating the civil rights of a minority in this country. It's funny that after all this time people still don't mind stomping on the rights of a minority, even JUSTIFYING actions by saying the only ones suffering are minorities. If you're willing to stomp on the rights of one minority, what's to stop you from doing it to another? "So, why are people who support a smaller government fighting a regulation that only affects a small portion of the "less than 2%" who are against it?" There are plenty more than 2% against this crap. Polls show as much as 50% are against it. Regardless, public polls don't justify a president violating the constitution. There is a clear and organized process for amending the constitution and it doesn't involve a poll. http://www.lifenews.com/2012/02/22/poll-americans-oppose-obama-birth-control-coverage-mandate/ http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/16/cnn-poll-half-oppose-obama-birth-control-insurance-plan/

If it were just a pure numbers game, then it still doesn't make sense. You are leaving out the biggest factor, cost. If that 2% of the population spent as much or more than the other 98% than does it really make that much financial sense to make a demand? As Taskr36 said, you are basing your conclusions on incomplete data. But this is more than a pure numbers game. There is still the Constitution and the First Amendment. The issue is about the Government demanding something to be free. Let's not even assume that it is birth control but anything. Anything that the Government demands to be free is going to cost someone (taxpayers, business, consumers, even the people who get it for free) more money. It isn't in the direct costs but the indirect costs where the fine print resides where you are paying more for a "free" item. So the big question is how is something "free" if you get charged regardless of whether or not you personally get that product? Think about it like an interest payment. You are getting something for "free" every time you swipe your card. But at the end of the month, you are going to pay for it plus some even though the product itself was "free" at the time.