Bigger Government or Smaller?

[ProVobis]

I agree, and the only way to take away political power is reduce politicians’ access to money.

I had a Q&A session with my Congressman last night. I proposed they let market forces let the interest rates rise. Maybe if they are high enough, Congress won’t be tempted to spend on things private industries should be running. At low rates, Congresses under Bush and Obama have done nothing but borrow.

Interesting thing though is that banks and corporations borrow at low rates as well. But they are just sitting on the money. Something is out of whack here.

 

[buffalo]

When did we have it in the first place?

Before 1900 and the income tax?

 

[sedonaman]

… Maybe if they are high enough, Congress won’t be tempted to spend on things private industries should be running. …

Therein lies a philosophical difference. There are too many who think there is nothing the government should not be doing. In the 1970s, the federal government funded a pet census in CA. If you dug deep enough, you’d probably find a program that provides federal funding for free sandals for gay ex-nuns with a foot fetish in FL.

While they are a minority in numbers, they are well-organized and know how to work the system.

 

[RWMorris]

Smart people help my thinking out please…How does a nation with over300 million citizens operate on a small or very very little Federal Government involvement?
Thank you! Carlan

No more handouts for you! Capisce?

 

[sedonaman]

Smart people help my thinking out please…How does a nation with over300 million citizens operate on a small or very very little Federal Government involvement?
Thank you! Carlan

Subsidiarity - Pius XI

To help those in need, it is often required to work towards structural change in society. This is not the prerogative only of government officials. In fact, the church has reminded governments that each substratum of society has an appropriate role. The need for vital contributions from different human associations – ranging in size from the family to government – has been classically expressed in Catholic social teaching in the principle of “subsidiarity.” Subsidiarity has been defined by Pope Pius XI in his classical encyclical, Quadragesimo Anno, 1931:

“Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time, a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do. For every social activity ought of its very nature to furnish help (subsidium) to the members of the body social, and never destroy and absorb them.”

Ref: Kevin E. McKenna, You Did It For Me​

While it might make sense to tax Connecticut, a rich state, to help Mississippi, a poor state, does it make sense to tax Mississippi and spend it on Connecticut?

 

[Trader]

Smart people help my thinking out please…How does a nation with over300 million citizens operate on a small or very very little Federal Government involvement?
Thank you! Carlan

We do it by recognizing the family as the basic building block of society. That was God’s original plan and no alternative has proved to be an improvement. Destruction and disrespect for the family brought down the Roman Empire, Communism, and seems poised to destroy our society. The Popes, especially from Paul VI to now, have been truly prophetic when they warned of the consequences from divorce, contraception, abortion, and homosexual “marriage”. The destruction of marriage and family is the destruction of society.

 

[Carlan]

We do it by recognizing the family as the basic building block of society. That was God’s original plan and no alternative has proved to be an improvement. Destruction and disrespect for the family brought down the Roman Empire, Communism, and seems poised to destroy our society. The Popes, especially from Paul VI to now, have been truly prophetic when they warned of the consequences from divorce, contraception, abortion, and homosexual “marriage”. The destruction of marriage and family is the destruction of society.

Yes, of course we Catholics believe that ,but we and other like minded barely make up one half of that 300million. We pray and continue to work to try and make a difference. Peace, Carlan

 

[mary_bobo]

We do it by recognizing the family as the basic building block of society. That was God’s original plan and no alternative has proved to be an improvement. Destruction and disrespect for the family brought down the Roman Empire, Communism, and seems poised to destroy our society. The Popes, especially from Paul VI to now, have been truly prophetic when they warned of the consequences from divorce, contraception, abortion, and homosexual “marriage”. The destruction of marriage and family is the destruction of society.

I agree with you.

The founding fathers envisioned a government where authority, other than that enumerated in the Constitution, were left to the states. It is easier and more efficient to deliver aid at the point closer to the recipients. It is easier to control waste, fraud and abuse at the lowest point of delivery of welfare services as possible. And I believe that the massive government programs coming from the feds, instead of doing good, have rather contributed to the breakdown of families and our society as a whole.

 

[RWMorris]

Yes, of course we Catholics believe that ,but we and other like minded barely make up one half of that 300million. We pray and continue to work to try and make a difference. Peace, Carlan

And it is very difficult for people to do for themselves after a lifetime of federal handouts. They will vote for anyone or anything as long as the “bread and circuses” continue. Alas, it is one of the terrible weaknesses of democracy.

 

[Carlan]

And it is very difficult for people to do for themselves after a lifetime of federal handouts. They will vote for anyone or anything as long as the “bread and circuses” continue. Alas, it is one of the terrible weaknesses of democracy.

I have mentioned before, it was Winston Churchhilll who said," Demecracy isn’t perfect, however, it’s the best we’ve got!
God help us, Peace, Carlan

 

[exnihilo]

I have mentioned before, it was Winston Churchhilll who said," Demecracy isn’t perfect, however, it’s the best we’ve got!

I used to repeat that quote myself. I’ve concluded that Churchill was wrong about this, and many other things. Hans Herman Hoppe has done an excellent job questioning that belief. He has an excellent book titled ‘Democracy: The God that Failed’. In it he demonstrates the great deficiencies of democracy and the relative, and forgotten, merits of monarchy.

One problem of Democracy is the short term outlook. The politician tends to only care about making things look good during his rule. He has little concern for the future. That is why we have massive debt and that is why even as we speak the politicians are promising to reign in the spending in the future.

 

[buffalo]

I have mentioned before, it was Winston Churchhilll who said," Demecracy isn’t perfect, however, it’s the best we’ve got!
God help us, Peace, Carlan

Margaret Thatcher: “The trouble with Socialism is, sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.”

 

[Birdpreacher]

The best government is one that governs the least.

OK no roads, defense, schools, consumer oversight, FFA, police, etc.

 

[exnihilo]

OK no roads, defense, schools, consumer oversight, FFA, police, etc.

I think when most people talk about minimal government they allow for roads.

Defense is a small part of the US’s current military expenditure. The vast majority of military money is spent on overseas wars of aggression.

Schools were not government run until the early 1900s. For most of history the government did not provide schools and folks managed to educate children. In fact the government schools seem to be unable any more to actually educate.

Consumer oversight is pretty broad. We have a whole mess of laws and yet bad things keep happening. Fraud is and always has been illegal. The idea that bureaucrats will do a better job as watchdogs than private groups is unwarranted. I trust Underwriter Labs far more than any government agency.

FFA?

Again most people believe a small government includes police. Although in fact for most early history there were not city police departments. While police do some good things many of the laws they enforce are not criminal but regulatory. And of course along with the modern police comes many instances of abuse. So for the good they do it is somewhat offset by the bad.

 

[sedonaman]

… the relative, and forgotten, merits of monarchy.
…

Like bills of attainder?

 

[exnihilo]

Like bills of attainder?

The claim is not perfection anymore than the church claims perfection (outside of teaching faith and morals).

I dont know enough about this specific claim but I’ll take a quote from Wikipedia:

Bills of attainder were sometimes criticized as a convenient way for the King to convict subjects of crimes and confiscate their property without the bother of a trial—and without the need for a conviction or indeed any evidence at all.

The relevant issues are seizing property and lack of trial. America seizes property for eminent domain. It now does so not for some government work but even for the benefit of private corporations. Yes, it will pay some nominal fee to the owner.

The people in Gitmo are not afforded a trial. The US recently even executed OBL without the benefit of trial on the orders of the president.

 

[Contarini]

Do you want a bigger or smaller government?

I am frustrated by the importance that many Americans seem to give to this question. The question seems to me to be a prudential and relative one–big or small how, and organized how?

If I had to choose, I’d say “smaller.” But most folks these days who talk about “smaller government” have in mind a society without a conception of the common good, characterized by radical individualism, and probably dominated by big corporations. (This is less likely to be held up as a good, but it seems to me that it would be the inevitable effect of “small government” political programs.)

I would like to see a larger space for “civil society”–for institutions that provide for the common good but are not under the direct control of the centralized state. If small government initiatives worked to promote civil society, I would support them. But often it seems to me that they don’t. And so in some circumstances “big government” may be the best option, even though the centralization of power is generally a bad thing.

It also seems to me that “small government” often refers only to domestic, civil programs. I have a lot more respect for consistent “small government” folks like Ron Paul than for the typical “small government” Republican who wants a large military.

Edwin

 

[buffalo]

I am frustrated by the importance that many Americans seem to give to this question. The question seems to me to be a prudential and relative one–big or small how, and organized how?

If I had to choose, I’d say “smaller.” But most folks these days who talk about “smaller government” have in mind a society without a conception of the common good, characterized by radical individualism, and probably dominated by big corporations. (This is less likely to be held up as a good, but it seems to me that it would be the inevitable effect of “small government” political programs.)

I would like to see a larger space for “civil society”–for institutions that provide for the common good but are not under the direct control of the centralized state. If small government initiatives worked to promote civil society, I would support them. But often it seems to me that they don’t. And so in some circumstances “big government” may be the best option, even though the centralization of power is generally a bad thing.

It also seems to me that “small government” often refers only to domestic, civil programs. I have a lot more respect for consistent “small government” folks like Ron Paul than for the typical “small government” Republican who wants a large military.

Edwin

Does anyone know how many employees total the top 1000 corporations employ as a % of total employment?

 

[Contarini]

Does anyone know how many employees total the top 1000 corporations employ as a % of total employment?

That’s an interesting question, but I’m not sure it adequately addresses the question of power. One of the big problems with the present system, in my opinion, is that you have a symbiosis between big corporations and big government–the corporations influence the government’s actions hugely through their economic power. That, again, is why I’m drawn to a consistent small-government guy like Ron Paul, while being very wary of most of the politicians who use the rhetoric of “small government” to support initiatives that favor big business.

The question, in my mind, is: if we dismantled much of the present government bureaucracy (which in itself is something I would favor), would the result be a growth in small business and a revival of the institutions of “civil society,” or would we all just become serfs to Bill Gates? I tend to think the latter. So I welcome the “anti-business” measures of the Democrats, which pit the two leviathans of our society against each other. That way maybe the rest of us can eke out some space in which to live normal lives. What passes for “small government” in practice simply seems to mean a government that does the bidding of the corporations with little restraint.

Edwin

 

[buffalo]

That’s an interesting question, but I’m not sure it adequately addresses the question of power. One of the big problems with the present system, in my opinion, is that you have a symbiosis between big corporations and big government–the corporations influence the government’s actions hugely through their economic power. That, again, is why I’m drawn to a consistent small-government guy like Ron Paul, while being very wary of most of the politicians who use the rhetoric of “small government” to support initiatives that favor big business.

The question, in my mind, is: if we dismantled much of the present government bureaucracy (which in itself is something I would favor), would the result be a growth in small business and a revival of the institutions of “civil society,” or would we all just become serfs to Bill Gates? I tend to think the latter. So I welcome the “anti-business” measures of the Democrats, which pit the two leviathans of our society against each other. That way maybe the rest of us can eke out some space in which to live normal lives. What passes for “small government” in practice simply seems to mean a government that does the bidding of the corporations with little restraint.

Edwin

Distributism and subsidiarity.