Question for Small-Government Supporters

[Charlie V]

A question for small-government supporters. Many consider you the "true conservatives" as opposed to the big-government Bush conservatives, but I personally think that one can be liberal and believe in small government. Semantics. Whatever. A question just popped into my head about small government.

Isn't it self-defeating in a way?

I mean, suppose a small-government politician came to power. So he reduces the size and strength of government. What he's reducing is the size and strength of a government that believes in a small government.

This creates a mini-vacuum, one which cannot be filled by more small-government politicians because that would increase the size of government and be contradictory. So big-government politicians come in and fill that vacuum.

In fact, small-government people would probably not want to be in government anyway, because their addition of themselves is one more person in government.

Isn't this a potential issue? Just wondering.

It occurs to me -- it's like having a church of a religion that doesn't believe in going to church. Well, if people don't go there, then there's no church, and what church is going to take it's place? A church of people who believe in going to church!

Charlie

 

[Maxwell511]

Isn't small government not more about the devolution of power to more localised levels? I don't think that that would create a vacuum.

Let's face it there are things in the US that probably would be better handled at the State level; education and healthcare.

 

[RonPaulJr]

Isn't small government not more about the devolution of power to more localised levels? I don't think that that would create a vacuum.

Let's face their are things in the US that probably would be better handled at the State level; education and healthcare.

One size fits all never fits all, and a standard policy from the national government is nothing more than buying a one size fits all shoe. It is doomed to failure at its onset, and will likely not solve any of the problems it was indented to solve, and more noteworthy is likely to create all together new ones.

 

[Charlie V]

Isn't small government not more about the devolution of power to more localised levels? I don't think that that would create a vacuum.

So "small government" really doesn't mean "small government"? It means bigger local government?

Also -- I think the hunger for power is an issue.

The small-government guys get in there, they're not going to say, "I want less power for myself!" They're going to want more power!

And if they don't seek more power, they themselves are going to be the vacuum, the lacking-in-power politicians that don't get re-elected because they don't have enough power to win. The power-politicians will get all the funding and all the money that will go into their campaigns and convince America to vote in the other guys.

Charlie

 

[Maxwell511]

One size fits all never fits all, and a standard policy from the national government is nothing more than buying a one size fits all shoe. It is doomed to failure at its onset, and will likely not solve any of the problems it was indented to solve, and more noteworthy is likely to create all together new ones.

That is really what I'm saying. When it comes to government programs to do with the welfare of individuals the more localised the better. Allowing for an appropriate amount of wealth in the region to provide for the services.

 

[Maxwell511]

So "small government" really doesn't mean "small government"? It means bigger local government?

To me. Probably not to everyone else.

Also -- I think the hunger for power is an issue.

The small-government guys get in there, they're not going to say, "I want less power for myself!" They're going to want more power!

And if they don't seek more power, they themselves are going to be the vacuum, the lacking-in-power politicians that don't get re-elected because they don't have enough power to win. The power-politicians will get all the funding and all the money that will go into their campaigns and convince America to vote in the other guys.

Charlie

This is because the electorate is used to big government. If they weren't then they wouldn't vote people in that seek to increase their influence.

 

[Charlie V]

To me. Probably not to everyone else.

In some ways, I like the idea of smaller government. But in some ways I think we need federal controls. I've not really enough time to explore all my veiws on the matter, but I'd probably redefine the system in many ways.

This is because the electorate is used to big government. If they weren't then they wouldn't vote people in that seek to increase their influence.

Umm.. I don't think it has much to do with what we're used to. I think it has to do with who gave us the best snow-job, who yelled the loudest and who we're maddest at this week.

Not to mention the deeply-ingrained ideologies that single-issue driven (or two- or three- issue driven) and are irrelevent to small- or big- government questions.

Note that my original question was really not asked from a perspective for or against big government. It was just a question I was pondering.

Charlie

 

[DieHappy]

So "small government" really doesn't mean "small government"? It means bigger local government?

Sometimes, yes. Usually a small government means that the government is doing something better left to the private sector. In some cases it means moving the responsibility to the local government where your voice is much louder.

Also -- I think the hunger for power is an issue.

The small-government guys get in there, they're not going to say, "I want less power for myself!" They're going to want more power!

And if they don't seek more power, they themselves are going to be the vacuum, the lacking-in-power politicians that don't get re-elected because they don't have enough power to win. The power-politicians will get all the funding and all the money that will go into their campaigns and convince America to vote in the other guys.

Charlie

Power is the issue, of course. There's an excellent article in the latest Newsweek about the 94 republicans screwing it all up. There were 8 or 9 of them sitting in a room talking about trying not to the let the highway bill get out of hand when a phone call came in congratulating one of them for seeing it the way of the committee and agreeing to vote for the bill. "There goes the revolution" was the slogan among them until they upheld their term limit promises and were replaced.

It's not hopeless for the small government conservatives. When you vote thinking "what's in it for me?" you're going to get a porker in office. But there is such a thing as seeking power in order to bring about a revolution without seeking power in order to line your pockets and bring giant bridge projects to your district. The problem is that those guys usually quit, either because they wrongly agreed to term limits or they get fed up with being on the losing side of the vote all the time. We need to keep the them there.

 

[variant]

A question for small-government supporters. Many consider you the "true conservatives" as opposed to the big-government Bush conservatives, but I personally think that one can be liberal and believe in small government. Semantics. Whatever. A question just popped into my head about small government.

I'm not a conservative, and you don't have to be to believe in small government.

Isn't it self-defeating in a way?

I mean, suppose a small-government politician came to power. So he reduces the size and strength of government. What he's reducing is the size and strength of a government that believes in a small government.

This creates a mini-vacuum, one which cannot be filled by more small-government politicians because that would increase the size of government and be contradictory. So big-government politicians come in and fill that vacuum.

The point is to transfer more power to the people, so you want the government with as little power as possible.

Big government is for filling vacuums, nannying you, making your moral decisions, protecting you from yourself, and taking away your responsibilities.

In fact, small-government people would probably not want to be in government anyway, because their addition of themselves is one more person in government.

I would love to be in government, so as to write policies that interfere with people the least.

Isn't this a potential issue? Just wondering.

It occurs to me -- it's like having a church of a religion that doesn't believe in going to church. Well, if people don't go there, then there's no church, and what church is going to take it's place? A church of people who believe in going to church!

Charlie

I don't actually believe in going to Church. But governments are not like churches, everyone is affected by them whether they want to be or not. If I were forced to attend a church I would want to be the leader so as to make sure the church was as unintrusive as possible.

 

[ImmortalTechnique]

i'm a small government liberal. the issue is about the legitimate use of government power. no small government advocate wants people to return to the state of nature, and just do whatever they want. it is the recognition that there are some things that people collectively can do better than an aggregate of individuals can do for themselves.

this comes in two forms:

there are certain things that become a neccesity of government simply by the existence of a society. things like a military, judicial system, etc. are only neccesary jobs of government because a society that has a government requires them.

other things are neccesary functions of government because they are the justification for creating a society in the first place. if the only functions of a government were to do the things to keep that government around, then there would be no reason to form one in the first place.

this is where liberalism and small government are married. small government is the original, most liberal idea of all time. the idea that people can determine the course of lives for themselves and decide on that government is important. the other important thing is that, as mentioned above, there are things that a government can do better for people than people can do for themselves. this isn't true of all individuals. some people can provide for themselves better than the government can. but as an aggregate, a government can provide police protection for people better than individuals could for themselves.
a further justification for government action on anything is how things would be in the absence of a government action.

take police again. while it might be theoretically true that a free market police force, where people hire and pay for their own justice would be cheaper, and more effective than a socialized police force like we have, it is not in the interests of the nation as a whole to have some people with police protection, and others completely unable to afford to protect their property. as with any socialized program, people can pay for better protection, such as security systems and firearms to augment the minimal level the government provides.

legitimate government programs are those that the government can provide for people better than people overall can provide for themselves. furthermore, it must be true that the absence of these things is unconscionable. that is why liberal governments all around the world that have smaller beauracracies than ours have socialized medicine. while some people can afford a free market health system, the government can provide for ALL people better than the free market can, and it is awful to have people unable to pay for basic health care. in these countries, people can still pay more for better care, but a basic level of care is a legitimate role of government.

people cry and whine about socialism, but EVERY government is socialistic. it is the degree to which it is socialistic, and the legitimacy of its social programs that must be questioned and examined. a government that is in no way socialistic is a meaningless concept.

we have a socialized millitary, police force, road system, etc. in this country.

things that are NOT legitimate government actions are the purview of BOTH parties. This doesn't change the fact that everyone believes in socialism. Its to what degree and in what form that the debate takes place

 

[Blackguard_]

This creates a mini-vacuum, one which cannot be filled by more small-government politicians because that would increase the size of government and be contradictory. So big-government politicians come in and fill that vacuum.

Vacuum?

Uhh, there isn't a vaccum if the volume decreases with the mass.

In fact, small-government people would probably not want to be in government anyway, because their addition of themselves is one more person in government.

Isn't this a potential issue? Just wondering.

It is a big one for some Anarchists ('is it OK to use State power to abolish State power?").

But you're right, it is something of a problem, as those who want small government do tend to be less inclined to be in office and big govet people more inclined to want it, resulting in a large proportion of pro-big gov people in office. But that's more a problem with big government supporters then with the idea of small government. If there weren't very many big govt people, or they had little power, it would work, at least until the big gov people get more support and/or weasel their way into more power. It's not self-defeating, it's more of an Achille's heel.

This is why the American Republic is ultimately a failure, as the Constitution and checks and balances were not able to hold back the big govt. people. In the early days when the supporters of "big" government were to the right of the Constitution Party today, it wasn't hard to have a small government, but as the idea of big govt became more popular , more big gov people went into office and fudged the law to support bigger and bigger govt.

 

[The_Horses_Boy]

When we hear the term "small government" you can listen to it two ways: 1) it's talking about the federal government, or 2) it's talking about (power to the) small government, i.e. state and local.

 

[Charlie V]

This is why the American Republic is ultimately a failure, as the Constitution and checks and balances were not able to hold back the big govt. people.

Um, I think that's an overstatement.

I believe this is why the American Republic, our Democracy is ultimately flawed and imperfect. However, despite being often extremely stressed to my maximum tolerance over the outrageous behavior of my government, I maintain my faith in my nation.

I believe in the Spirit of '76. I believe in that document, the Declaration of Independance, despite its flaws, and in the Consitution and especially, the Bill of Rights.

I believe these things will survive the flaws and the corruption, and the future will continue to bring us good and bad governments, we will have our future Warren Hardings and George W Bush's and we will have our future Franklin Roosevelts and Abraham Lincolns and John F Kennedys.

But no matter how any of us feels about the policies of all these fellows, I'm always going to hold these truths to be self-evident, as Jefferson did, and will always believe in the things that "We the People" ordained and established in in our preamble, and I'll not call those a failure until there's not one person left who holds those truths to be self-evident, and no George W Bush and no Republican or Democrat in Congress or the White House will ever take that away from me.

Charlie

 

[burrow_owl]

Uhh, there isn't a vaccum if the volume decreases with the mass.

That's a good answer.

 

[OhhJim]

The best way would be to get each branch of government to reduce another's power. That way, they each have motivation to reduce government. Or maybe two branches could join in reducing the other's power.

Probably not gonna happen, of course.

 

[mwb]

Many people like to say they are for small (local focused or privatized) government until the discussion turns to social security, national healthcare & hurricane response, etc. In addition, look at voter turnout. It usually highest for presidential elections & lowest for local races.

 

[FatBaldandToothless]

If I were king of the world, I would make myself the sole ruler.

FB&T in '08.