Reason.tv with Drew Carey

Actually, what you describe sounds neither Republican nor Democrat, but rather Libertarian, which is how I find myself leaning these days. Small government, solely for national defense and natural disaster response that would overwhelm a smaller entity/locality. Pot would be legal because its your choice to use it. Freeways would be privatized, because the gov't has no monetary incentive to end gridlock, hence will never be able to achieve the goal. A private company would. On the flip-side, and this is why more people aren't Libertarians, is that people are allowed to fail. If you smoke pot so much that you can't hold a job and produce no income, you starve. Most folks couldn't stand stepping over the bodies. Unless you want to help them, and then by all means, you as an individual or private company, could help them all you want. You would have the liberty to do so. Same thing with welfare. It'd be privatized and run very locally by people who care in each city. Privatized philanthropy would efficiently replace bloated bureaucratic government entitlement programs and the stifling taxes that fund them. Penn Jillette (of Penn & Teller) has some interesting ideas along these lines.

Good points, and I didn't mean for it to be inferred that I favor no government oversight. I'm not of the anarchist school of libertarianism. I favor police to ensure that I have my freedoms without being encroached on by others freedoms. Same reasoning as national defense, some things are too large for the immediately effected locality to handle effectively. In that vein, corporations would need to follow guidelines and standards within the law, which would be enforced by government. So, no poison in the food, and no blowing up every fifth car on the freeway, just to ease traffic congestion.