"Less Government"

[mike3]

Hi.

I'm curious to discuss the following view. Government takes responsibilities that people do not take themselves. So if you want, e.g. "less government" in healthcare, then you have to take over those responsibilities yourself. This includes helping others who are in need get what they need, and not just judging them as "lazy" when you really don't know them. If you can't do that, then you don't deserve "less government" there.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by mike3

I'm curious to discuss the following view. Government takes responsibilities that people do not take themselves.

I don't think that's even a legitimate definition of what government does. Some things we can only do as a society and not as individuals.


However, my own response to people arguing against "big government" is usually thus:

We already tried and rejected a system with a weaker central government under the Articles of Confederation. We revisited the issue of "states' rights" and a weaker central government in the Civil War. If government is bad, why is state government good?

The fact is, we have a large country with, I think, the largest economy in the world. We will never have anything that can properly be called a "small government".

What they usually mean is that while they approve of really big government spending for the common defense (in recent years, the U.S. has been spending roughly what the entire rest of the world combined spends on military), they disapprove of a lot of spending for the general welfare. I like to point out that the only places "the common defence" occurs in the Constitution it is in parallel with "the general welfare".

[respect]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

I don't think that's even a legitimate definition of what government does. Some things we can only do as a society and not as individuals.


However, my own response to people arguing against "big government" is usually thus:

We already tried and rejected a system with a weaker central government under the Articles of Confederation. We revisited the issue of "states' rights" and a weaker central government in the Civil War. If government is bad, why is state government good?

The fact is, we have a large country with, I think, the largest economy in the world. We will never have anything that can properly be called a "small government".

What they usually mean is that while they approve of really big government spending for the common defense (in recent years, the U.S. has been spending roughly what the entire rest of the world combined spends on military), they disapprove of a lot of spending for the general welfare. I like to point out that the only places "the common defence" occurs in the Constitution it is in parallel with "the general welfare".

Government's benefits are also its problems. It can and does desirable things that private businesses and charities don't do, or can't do in the way we desire. However, it also lacks the restraint that private organizations must show because costs (and bankruptcy) are of such little concern. I wouldn't say the problem with "big government" is necessarily what it does, but rather that it does its business in such an inefficient manner so often.

To give an example of what I mean, someone I know was a high ranking bureaucrat in the Department of Education. Several other people around the country held the same regional position. They got together and negotiated lucrative early retirements on the grounds that their positions were completely unnecessary due to redundancy and it would be cheaper to buy them out. Why the hell should such positions exist to begin with? A private business wasting money like that would suffer, government does not. And that hardly gets into "favors". Even if every function of government is desirable, it could do a much better job of spending our money efficiently.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by respect

However, it also lacks the restraint that private organizations must show because costs (and bankruptcy) are of such little concern.

And private businesses lack the checks and balances of government. Also, we're free to vote out politicians we don't want back. Even with publicly traded corporations, there is no one-person-one-vote approach.

Basically, that just says they're two different things.

It doesn't argue that government should be significantly smaller than it is.

[respect]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

And private businesses lack the checks and balances of government. Also, we're free to vote out politicians we don't want back. Even with publicly traded corporations, there is no one-person-one-vote approach.

Basically, that just says they're two different things.

It doesn't argue that government should be significantly smaller than it is.

You seem to be responding to a different post than you cited.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by respect

To give an example of what I mean, someone I know was a high ranking bureaucrat in the Department of Education. Several other people around the country held the same regional position. They got together and negotiated lucrative early retirements on the grounds that their positions were completely unnecessary due to redundancy and it would be cheaper to buy them out. Why the hell should such positions exist to begin with? A private business wasting money like that would suffer, government does not. And that hardly gets into "favors". Even if every function of government is desirable, it could do a much better job of spending our money efficiently.

So you would favor privatizing all education because private corporations never give their execs golden parachutes? They never reward or incentivize incompetence?

I think anti-corruption legislation and proper oversight is a more reasonable solution to the problem you cite.

[respect]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

So you would favor privatizing all education because private corporations never give their execs golden parachutes? They never reward or incentivize incompetence?

This has nothing to do with what I said.

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

I think anti-corruption legislation and proper oversight is a more reasonable solution to the problem you cite.

That's a bingo.

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

I don't think that's even a legitimate definition of what government does. Some things we can only do as a society and not as individuals.


However, my own response to people arguing against "big government" is usually thus:

We already tried and rejected a system with a weaker central government under the Articles of Confederation. We revisited the issue of "states' rights" and a weaker central government in the Civil War. If government is bad, why is state government good?

Being a proponent of fewer government powers does not mean an increase is powers granted to the state.

[Bikewer]

I have often wondered about the end-point of "less" government. How much less? Much of what is talked about getting rid of is excessive regulation and control. Essentially, a move towards a more libertarian attitude towards business and industry.

Yet many of the regulations and controls were enacted to correct severe problems. Are we to assume that removing the regulations will automatically ensure compliance in some way?
This does not appear to be the case historically, where even under strict controls businesses and industries try to cheat and game the system all the time. Not to mention just outright engaging in illegal enterprise.
You can certainly make a case that government is bloated; that there is a lot of waste, redundancy, and complexity that's probably not needed. How small do these folks want government to be?

[TragicMonkey]

In my experience, people who talk about the benefits of "less government" really mean "get rid of all the government spending on programs that I, personally, do not use or think I will use". The things they use themselves never seem to make it onto their list of things to get cut.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

Being a proponent of fewer government powers does not mean an increase is powers granted to the state.

Tell that to Gov. Brewer. There are many who base their anti-federalist position on a states' rights argument.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

In my experience, people who talk about the benefits of "less government" really mean "get rid of all the government spending on programs that I, personally, do not use or think I will use". The things they use themselves never seem to make it onto their list of things to get cut.

I guess I'm a bit less cynical. I think many "small government" proponents really are arguing for an ideology, often even against their own best interests. (The mass of people at Tea Party rallies, for example, are not wealthy or even upper middle class.)

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

(The mass of people at Tea Party rallies, for example, are not wealthy or even upper middle class.)

And if you go into their finances, you'll find that the vast majority of them will be relying on Social Security and Medicare in retirement.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by respect

You seem to be responding to a different post than you cited.

Nope. You pointed out a control on bad decision making that applies to private companies by not to the government. I pointed out that the government has many controls that private companies lack.


So? I see nothing there that argues for "less government".

Originally Posted by respect

This has nothing to do with what I said.

It's pretty much the same as above. You pointed out a problem whereby high-up people in the Department of Education cut themselves a sweet retirement. I pointed out that the same sort of thing happens in the private sector too--only more so.

Again, I see nothing that argues for "less government".

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

And if you go into their finances, you'll find that the vast majority of them will be relying on Social Security and Medicare in retirement.

Exactly. I think there's some manipulation of the masses involved. It is against their own interest to argue for drastic cuts in those programs. They've been sold an ideology, I think. (Or they at least have bought into an ideology regardless of how it would affect them personally.)

[BenBurch]

"Less Government" really means "Less restriction on how invasive and kleptocratic government may be."

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

"Less Government" really means "Less restriction on how invasive and kleptocratic government may be."

Does it mean that across the board? Why are those who want to cut spending so reluctant to revoke tax breaks for the highly profitable big 5 oil companies? Why are they so eager to cut trivial programs like funding for NPR and Planned Parenthood?

And why are those same people in favor of laws restricting a woman's right to get an abortion? Why are those same people in favor of the DOMA which is essentially the government forbidding homosexuals from getting married?

How exactly does one define "invasive" wrt government?

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

How exactly does one define "invasive" wrt government?

Invasive government is "any government action that I, personally, do not think should be done."

And any action which the speaker thinks the government should be doing, but isn't, is an example of "shocking neglect".

[respect]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

Nope. You pointed out a control on bad decision making that applies to private companies by not to the government. I pointed out that the government has many controls that private companies lack.


So? I see nothing there that argues for "less government".



It's pretty much the same as above. You pointed out a problem whereby high-up people in the Department of Education cut themselves a sweet retirement. I pointed out that the same sort of thing happens in the private sector too--only more so.

Again, I see nothing that argues for "less government".

The point was that government could be more efficient with its resources (largely the taxes we pay) and you somehow took this to mean privatizing education. It wasn't an argument for "less" government, rather for smarter government that does a better job allocating resources.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by respect

The point was that government could be more efficient with its resources (largely the taxes we pay) and you somehow took this to mean privatizing education. It wasn't an argument for "less" government, rather for smarter government that does a better job allocating resources.

Ah--my apologies. It sounded just like the kinds of arguments people make for saying that the private sector can do better than government--part of the "small government" arguments one often hears.

Can you explain the relevance of the observation that government can't go bankrupt the way private businesses can?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by respect

The point was that government could be more efficient with its resources (largely the taxes we pay) and you somehow took this to mean privatizing education. It wasn't an argument for "less" government, rather for smarter government that does a better job allocating resources.

A claim often made however is it true? As you state above " It can and does desirable things that private businesses and charities don't do, or can't do in the way we desire. ". Perhaps what we perceive as "inefficiency" is the cost of doing things "in the way we desire". And as others have stated in the thread government is not the same as private enterprise, albeit sometimes it does things that private enterprises also do so it is in some areas a matter of comparing apples and pears, yes they are both fruits but with different flavours.

[respect]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

Ah--my apologies. It sounded just like the kinds of arguments people make for saying that the private sector can do better than government--part of the "small government" arguments one often hears.

Can you explain the relevance of the observation that government can't go bankrupt the way private businesses can?

The private sector is much more efficient than government because businesses and non-profits face significant financial consequences if they are not. The advantage of government is that it does not have to make decisions on those same grounds, however, the lack of financial restraint also leads to a lot of poor decisions. Many are just unnecessary waste like redundant positions in the Department of Education. And many are deliberate waste due to favoritism and cronyism.

I suspect that if it were not for the endless parade of news stories about wasteful spending and corruption the calls for smaller government would not be so popular. Open up the Chicago Tribune on any given day and you can read about how some politically connected piece of #@%# got a hefty government contract or cushy no-show job at the taxpayer's expense.

People want government services, but also see that those same services could be provided at much less cost if government did a better job of cracking down on waste and corruption. It is only natural to recognize that constant waste would doom a private company as its competitors would only have to spend more wisely to price them out of the marketplace. If government ran a tighter ship you would see a lot less anger at its spending.

[respect]

Originally Posted by Darat

A claim often made however is it true? As you state above " It can and does desirable things that private businesses and charities don't do, or can't do in the way we desire. ". Perhaps what we perceive as "inefficiency" is the cost of doing things "in the way we desire". And as others have stated in the thread government is not the same as private enterprise, albeit sometimes it does things that private enterprises also do so it is in some areas a matter of comparing apples and pears, yes they are both fruits but with different flavours.

To illustrate, most everyone but a handful of Ron Paul fanatics agrees that governmental fire departments are a desirable function of government. However, that does not mean anyone will be happy if there is three people redundantly doing the same job at the commissioners office and a made up position that pays $80,000 a year to inspect the foundations of department buildings that just happens to go to the brother of a guy who organized a get out the vote campaign on behalf of the mayor despite him having no qualifications and he only has to actually work 20 hours a year to collect the salary.

I'm not saying those a real examples, just that things like that happen a lot. Perhaps I am jaded by Chicago where such corruption is so common.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

And if you go into their finances, you'll find that the vast majority of them will be relying on Social Security and Medicare in retirement.

That is thoroughly unpersuasive. If you've been taxed to fund entitlement programs in the past, then you do not have the financial resources that you would have if you hadn't been taxed. You may therefore be dependent on a system that you never wanted in the first place. But forcing someone into dependency doesn't mean that they want that dependency, or that the dependency is good, just because they've become dependent.

Plus, of course, social security and medicare aren't the only, or necessarily even the primary, issues for the tea party or its individual members, so you haven't demonstrated any kind of hypocrisy here. All you've done is demonstrate a lazy sort of guilt-by-association accusation, akin to pointing out how some leftists are personally very rich.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

Exactly. I think there's some manipulation of the masses involved. It is against their own interest to argue for drastic cuts in those programs. They've been sold an ideology, I think.

What makes you think that's where they're asking for drastic cuts? For many older members of the tea party, the logic is probably exactly the reverse of what you presume: they're worried that out-of-control spending in OTHER areas of government threaten their benefits, and want to curb the growth of government in order to protect those benefits.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

However, my own response to people arguing against "big government" is usually thus:

We already tried and rejected a system with a weaker central government under the Articles of Confederation.

The optimal government is somewhere between the Articles of Confederation and the Soviet Union. What is not obvious, and in fact what has no universal answer because it depends on your values, is where exactly that optimal point is. Favoring bigger or smaller government only has real meaning in comparison to the present size of government. Wanting smaller government doesn't mean that you want the Articles of Confederation any more than wanting bigger government means you want the Soviet Union. All it means is that you think we're above (or below) whatever that optimal point is. Neither position can be discounted by appealing to the extreme endpoints.

[seayakin]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

The optimal government is somewhere between the Articles of Confederation and the Soviet Union. What is not obvious, and in fact what has no universal answer because it depends on your values, is where exactly that optimal point is. Favoring bigger or smaller government only has real meaning in comparison to the present size of government. Wanting smaller government doesn't mean that you want the Articles of Confederation any more than wanting bigger government means you want the Soviet Union. All it means is that you think we're above (or below) whatever that optimal point is. Neither position can be discounted by appealing to the extreme endpoints.

This is where I get a little more cynical as TragicMonkey indicates. I'll hazard a guess that less than 5% of the population wants to go to a command and control economy or go to some libertarian free state. However, few people want to cut programs that hurt them directly. (My parents will rail endlessly against the evils of government while collecting social security and receiving medicare and fight anyone who tries to implement means testing or other measures to limit its cost.)

This is where the op-ed poses an interesting question. For those who are highly critical of the government (but not libertopians), how much should the government do beyond national defense, police protection and fire protection.

I personally believe it should do all that in addition to supporting a transportation infrastructure, education level to ensure people can make at least semi-reasonable decisions in voting, and a safety net so no one should starve to death or freeze death (unless they absolutely refuse aid). I also admit that defining what this safety net should cover gets very fuzzy and difficult to define.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by seayakin

This is where I get a little more cynical as TragicMonkey indicates. I'll hazard a guess that less than 5% of the population wants to go to a command and control economy or go to some libertarian free state. However, few people want to cut programs that hurt them directly. (My parents will rail endlessly against the evils of government while collecting social security and receiving medicare and fight anyone who tries to implement means testing or other measures to limit its cost.)

This is where the op-ed poses an interesting question. For those who are highly critical of the government (but not libertopians), how much should the government do beyond national defense, police protection and fire protection.

I personally believe it should do all that in addition to supporting a transportation infrastructure, education level to ensure people can make at least semi-reasonable decisions in voting, and a safety net so no one should starve to death or freeze death (unless they absolutely refuse aid). I also admit that defining what this safety net should cover gets very fuzzy and difficult to define.

Well, you know, every single thing we are doing now was voted on by at least two bodies ordained by the Constitution and elected by the People.

Many Conservatives try to present the present system as though it was foisted upon the People by some unaccountable federal monster, when in reality the Federal Government IS the People. Making war on government is making war on the People and represents the position that the People are not fit to govern.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Many Conservatives try to present the present system as though it was foisted upon the People by some unaccountable federal monster, when in reality the Federal Government IS the People. Making war on government is making war on the People and represents the position that the People are not fit to govern.

"Making war" is obvious hyperbole, but along with "the People", it does muddy the water. While you can accurately claim that government has grown to its current size by following democratic mechanisms, it's not accurate to suggest that its current size is the result of any specific consensus. It isn't. That's not how the system works. Minority viewpoints often win out for various reasons (and that's not always a problem), and our spending doesn't resemble a single design or designer. We're where we are now as the result of constant pushing and pulling from different sides. The fact that one particular group is pulling very hard in a direction that's different from how we've been moving so far is in no way a break from that process, but is very much a continuation of it. Trying to push both politicians and voters in a new direction is in fact EXACTLY the sort of democratic action that you're implying conservatives are trying to undermine.

[BenBurch]

What I observe is Conservatives seeking to do everything possible to disenfranchise the People.

[Biscuit]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

If government is bad, why is state government good?

A question I have often asked but never received a good answer until this weekend. Some NPR program was interviewing a young female tea bagger in Seattle who was arguing for stronger state government using an argument that I will reframe for my own situation.

I live in Tucson AZ and the state capital is about 90 miles due north of me. I can get to phoenix and back in a day where I can visit all of my states government buildings. I can meet representatives, protest out front, perhaps even testify on an issue. In order to get to Washington DC I must drive for days or fly at great expense and eat up at least two days. The chances of actually seeing one of my reps is much lower and actually lobbying them is unlikely.

While I don't agree with all aspects of that argument it is the most rational one I have heard of. The rest of her arguments in the segment where typical tea bagger nonsense but that part got me thinking.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

That is thoroughly unpersuasive. If you've been taxed to fund entitlement programs in the past, then you do not have the financial resources that you would have if you hadn't been taxed. You may therefore be dependent on a system that you never wanted in the first place. But forcing someone into dependency doesn't mean that they want that dependency, or that the dependency is good, just because they've become dependent.

Yeah, because everybody would definitely save and invest the money taken out of their paychecks for SS and Medicare. You can see how much that is, it's printed on every paycheck. They're not being "forced into dependency"--they're already dependent. They're merely forced to pay for part of what they'll take out later.

[Without Rights]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

If government is bad, why is state government good?

Because it is not a single monolithic answer to all problems. The States are closer to the people and therefore the people have more power over them. If your state is not in line with your political morals, you can leave her and still be an American. Choice exists under State sovereignty.

[Without Rights]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Well, you know, every single thing we are doing now was voted on by at least two bodies ordained by the Constitution and elected by the People.


Many Conservatives try to present the present system as though it was foisted upon the People by some unaccountable federal monster, when in reality the Federal Government IS the People. Making war on government is making war on the People and represents the position that the People are not fit to govern.

Wrong. It represents the position that the Government doesn't care about what the people think and is acting beyond the lines the people have drawn. When media told Cheney that 70% opposed the war in Iraq his answer was "so what". That is not Government by the people. And since all these wars were entered upon without congressional consent, it is blatant disregard for the people. Obama promised to fix that, instead he continued the practices of Bush and increased war in a way Bush would have never been able to achieve. His attempts at making every Muslim nation our enemy is even pissing China off to the point were they will intervene. Government by the people doesn't exist. We vote and then they do what they want, for whoever they want.

Joe Biden said "war without congressional approval warrants impeachment". File the paperwork Joe.

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

That is thoroughly unpersuasive. If you've been taxed to fund entitlement programs in the past, then you do not have the financial resources that you would have if you hadn't been taxed. You may therefore be dependent on a system that you never wanted in the first place. But forcing someone into dependency doesn't mean that they want that dependency, or that the dependency is good, just because they've become dependent.

Plus, of course, social security and medicare aren't the only, or necessarily even the primary, issues for the tea party or its individual members, so you haven't demonstrated any kind of hypocrisy here. All you've done is demonstrate a lazy sort of guilt-by-association accusation, akin to pointing out how some leftists are personally very rich.

Not only that but the Tea Party argues that expenses must be brought down to about the level of income, and that we need to directly address the large number of people who are being forced into dependency based on their receipt of government money that does not exist, that was printed out of thin air.
They argue that this change is a good thing. I find it hard to argue with that, and have trouble seeing how anyone could argue with it.

It isn't anything like the traditional government dependency model of liberals.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by Without Rights

Because it is not a single monolithic answer to all problems. The States are closer to the people and therefore the people have more power over them. If your state is not in line with your political morals, you can leave her and still be an American. Choice exists under State sovereignty.

First, I don't think anyone ever asserted that the federal government provides a single monolithic answer to all problems, but I don't see that, for example, the healthcare crisis is so very different from one state to another. In fact, it rather annoys me that some benefits are available to people in some states that aren't there for citizens of other states. That always struck me as unfair.

And how are the states closer to the people? Federal Representatives and Congresspersons are chosen in direct elections just as they are for state legislatures. Letter writing (or faxes or e-mails or phone calls) are just as effective if sent to a local office as to one in D.C. A great many of our federal representatives started out in state government.

I think very very few people leave their home states because it is "not in line with your political morals".

ETA: And if by "choice" under state sovereignty you mean the freedom to leave the state, then there is more choice under the federal government. That is, there are more nations you could move to than there are states. And frankly, wherever I live I would be an American. If you're talking about citizenship or residency status or some such, then I can't leave Missouri and still be a Missourian either.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Yeah, because everybody would definitely save and invest the money taken out of their paychecks for SS and Medicare.

We aren't talking about everybody. We're talking about a self-selected group. And you have no idea what they would have done had things been different. In fact, basically everything you've said about what they think is unsupported conjecture on your part.

Quote:

They're not being "forced into dependency"--they're already dependent.

You can't get around this issue by playing with verb tense, TM.

Quote:

They're merely forced to pay for part of what they'll take out later.

No. They were forced to pay for other people's benefits. Those payments form no part of their future benefits. The system has never worked the way you suggest. Furthermore, what you suggest is clearly impossible to sustain: retirees can only receive more in benefits than they put in as payments as long as the working population grows faster than the retired population. But that is now a demographic impossibility.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

What I observe is Conservatives seeking to do everything possible to disenfranchise the People.

Why don't you just say "the Proletariat"?

[geni]

Originally Posted by respect

To give an example of what I mean, someone I know was a high ranking bureaucrat in the Department of Education. Several other people around the country held the same regional position. They got together and negotiated lucrative early retirements on the grounds that their positions were completely unnecessary due to redundancy and it would be cheaper to buy them out. Why the hell should such positions exist to begin with? A private business wasting money like that would suffer, government does not.

Changeing technoligies making people more productive and changing priorities. Companies are costantly getting rid of people who do job they no longer feel are needed and early retirement deals are a standard way of doing so.

[geni]

Originally Posted by respect

The private sector is much more efficient than government because businesses and non-profits face significant financial consequences if they are not.

Strangly no. Since companies are generaly limited by garentee financial consequences are equaly limited.

Quote:

I suspect that if it were not for the endless parade of news stories about wasteful spending and corruption the calls for smaller government would not be so popular. Open up the Chicago Tribune on any given day and you can read about how some politically connected piece of #@%# got a hefty government contract or cushy no-show job at the taxpayer's expense.

Except if you look at who companies tend to contract stuff out to there is a tendecy to make deals with people they already know. In the private sector what you are refuring to as "politically connected" is called networking.

Quote:

People want government services, but also see that those same services could be provided at much less cost if government did a better job of cracking down on waste and corruption. It is only natural to recognize that constant waste would doom a private company as its competitors would only have to spend more wisely to price them out of the marketplace.

How's that working out with microsoft?