Bigger Government or Smaller?

[exnihilo]

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.)

Corporations are children of the state. They are a legal fiction. Big government has created big corporations. They exists because of each other and build each other up.

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.

Indeed the military is one of the largest expenditures of the federal government. What I observe is the Democrats want big government for social programs and the Republicans for military. In reality they are both social programs. As terrible as giving people money for nothing is destroying the world is worse.

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.

How are we not already serfs to Bill Gates? His company as it is buys up competition. Google has become a big firm and if you notice is itself buying up any good idea that comes along.

Why would you think the ‘anti-business’ measures will actually achieve their stated purpose? Why would you think that the Democrats policy will really work? The Dems as much as the Republicans dont really spend their time hanging out with the common man. They hang out with rich industrialists. The corporations write the laws that regulate them. They make sure they have outs and that the law will strengthen their position by creating barriers to entry. It is no mistake that GE pays nothing in corporate tax. They wrote the laws.

 

[Joseklos]

I prefer having a monarch rule my country. America got lucky because the people are used to doing things in an orderly way but in my country, (El Salvador) some people will literally build a house on the sidewalk! and theres also gangs and prostitution. A small government can’t do much to fix the problems in m country.

 

[sedonaman]

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:

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.

The whole idea behind the American form of government was to distribute power to avoid the pitfalls of a monarchy, not the least of which is absolute power.

There is more to a bill of attainder than seizing property and and no trial. The term originates from “tainted”, referring to “tainted” blood. An example would be if your father offended the crown in some way, you were guilty simply by being related to him, and had “tainted blood”. You might not be imprisoned, but you could be denied your inheritance and be ostracized by the crown and shunned by society.

The GTMO detainees are a different case altogether.

 

[MillTownCath]

Do you want a bigger or smaller government?

Bad question. I want BETTER government. I don’t want to end up like Alabama.

 

[exnihilo]

The whole idea behind the American form of government was to distribute power to avoid the pitfalls of a monarchy, not the least of which is absolute power.

Absolute power has to be defined to really discuss it. There is really no such thing as one person having all the power. The power always rests on everyone else agreeing to that power. The king is only one person. His decree means nothing if people dont follow it. Yes the king has enforcers but they too are outnumbered by those who submit. In a monarchy those in the line of succession would keep the king in check as would other nobles.

Modern democracies claim absolute power in that they reserve the right to regulate every aspect of human existence. There is no element of your life that is beyond the state. So in that sense they have absolute power. Yes, most states do allow some measure of freedom within the bounds they establish.

Practically speaking in modern America the president is a king without a heredity reign (though the Bush dynasty and the possibility of the Clinton one show how even with democracy families dominate) and with a rule limited in term. The president is allowed to make decisions that far exceed his constitutional power. Congress is supposed to declare war but in practice the president does and then is approved, always approved, by congress. The president will issue executive orders making up law that is again never challenged or overturned. The president campaigns on what he will do when he is supposed to just administer the government as the law dictates not write the law.

The reason behind it is rather simple. Men dont like to be held accountable. We want one person to blame. For the congressmen they dont want to be held accountable for any decisions. So they let the president make decisions. Yes the congressmen make a good show out of their battles, but at then end of the day they want a president to blame for them having to compromise their principles or when the side they backed wins but the results, as always, turn out to be something terribly different from what they promised.

There is more to a bill of attainder than seizing property and and no trial. The term originates from “tainted”, referring to “tainted” blood. An example would be if your father offended the crown in some way, you were guilty simply by being related to him, and had “tainted blood”. You might not be imprisoned, but you could be denied your inheritance and be ostracized by the crown and shunned by society.

I was just showing that some of the same things occur. Of course we have good justifications for why we violate people’s rights in modern times. If you ever offended the power of the US government you would find out that they will employ various weapons to make you regret that decision. If you are a foreign leader your country may be bombed. If you are a citizen the law might be strictly enforced on you. There is a reason we have a mind boggling number of laws: everyone is in violation of some law and this comes in handy if anyone gets out of line.

 

[sedonaman]

Absolute power has to be defined to really discuss it. There is really no such thing as one person having all the power. The power always rests on everyone else agreeing to that power. The king is only one person. His decree means nothing if people dont follow it. Yes the king has enforcers but they too are outnumbered by those who submit. In a monarchy those in the line of succession would keep the king in check as would other nobles.

Modern democracies claim absolute power in that they reserve the right to regulate every aspect of human existence. There is no element of your life that is beyond the state. So in that sense they have absolute power. Yes, most states do allow some measure of freedom within the bounds they establish.

Practically speaking in modern America the president is a king without a heredity reign (though the Bush dynasty and the possibility of the Clinton one show how even with democracy families dominate) and with a rule limited in term. The president is allowed to make decisions that far exceed his constitutional power. Congress is supposed to declare war but in practice the president does and then is approved, always approved, by congress. The president will issue executive orders making up law that is again never challenged or overturned. The president campaigns on what he will do when he is supposed to just administer the government as the law dictates not write the law.

The reason behind it is rather simple. Men dont like to be held accountable. We want one person to blame. For the congressmen they dont want to be held accountable for any decisions. So they let the president make decisions. Yes the congressmen make a good show out of their battles, but at then end of the day they want a president to blame for them having to compromise their principles or when the side they backed wins but the results, as always, turn out to be something terribly different from what they promised.

I was just showing that some of the same things occur. Of course we have good justifications for why we violate people’s rights in modern times. If you ever offended the power of the US government you would find out that they will employ various weapons to make you regret that decision. If you are a foreign leader your country may be bombed. If you are a citizen the law might be strictly enforced on you. There is a reason we have a mind boggling number of laws: everyone is in violation of some law and this comes in handy if anyone gets out of line.

Here cir-usa.org/cases/white_v_lee.html is an example of three people who “offended” the Clinton Administration. I don’t think they would have won against a monarchy.

If a monarchy is preferable to a republic, why didn’t the founding fathers establish one instead?

 

[RWMorris]

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

Roads, schools, police, education, consumer oversight, FAA (?) are all local, state, or private concerns, i.e. none of the feds business. I want an American national government that is not in debt to anyone and does not steal its citizen’s property, for any reason, good or bad. There are only two rights that are universal; life and liberty. All other rights are simply government favors and political in nature.

 

[RWMorris]

Bad question. I want BETTER government. I don’t want to end up like Alabama.

I’m not sure what your point is.

 

[Quarrithbrakka]

The government that governs least, governs best!

The USA now has a government “of the government, by the government, and for the government.” Definitely NOT the way our forefathers designed it to be.

We need to take a giant step backward, in order to take good steps forward.

Big government = massively big spending, attrociously high salaries, incredible waste, and much, much more! And do not even get me started on our present President. Rediculous, and a disaster for our country!

 

[sedonaman]

…The USA now has a government “of the government, by the government, and for the government.” …

I think it is “government of the people, by the people, and to the people.”

 

[Sonny1954]

I voted “Bigger” between the two choices.

I wonder if the poll results would have been a little less lopsided if the choices were “Effective” and “Ineffective.” I don’t believe in big government. But effective governmental action is absolutely essentially to maintaining our national strength; militarily, economically and socially. And it’s important in order for us to maintain some role of leardership in the world. There are some public issues which private charity, however welcomed and well-meaning, does not effectively address.