Libertarians: What's so bad about big government?

Natorgator · Post by **Natorgator** » 2004-12-01 12:55pm

I posted this in another forum, and I'd also like to get SD.net's response.

A lot of people say they're libertarian and that they're for smaller government. However, what is inherently bad with a big government, as long as it stays out of the lives of it's citizens? I used to be against big government until I realized that I am just against wasteful spending. I am personally financially conservative.

Services the government provides for us are things that we ALL depend on or may need at some point in our lives - such as public roads, public school, the Federal Reserve, unemployment insurance, TANF, and of course let's not forget defense such as the military or police, and of course firemen. What's so great about small governments?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-12-01 01:00pm

Most libertarians have a large Pentagon-shaped hole in their "small government" thinking.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-12-01 02:01pm

For me personally, I'm opposed to big government because, as P.J. O'Rourke put it, it's never a good idea to let the people with all the money and the people with all the guns be the same people. Big government isn't simply a matter of size, it's a matter of how much power the state has over the individual, and I feel that in a society where the sovereignty of the individal is the fundamental principle, power should not be concentrated at the top.

Of course, where I find myself starting to veer away from the libertarian movement is where it comes to corporations, which ALSO represent a concentration of power away from the individual, and while they can't legally use force, it can apply pressure on the state to use it on their behalf. To extend an analogy, they can't own guns, but they can rent them. Look, for example, at municipalities which use eminent domain to force homeowners off their land on behalf of commercial developers. The collaboration of the state and the corporation against the individual is a disturbing trend, one which may well represent the greatest long-term threat to the survival of individual liberty.

montypython · Post by **montypython** » 2004-12-01 02:03pm

Would that be a corporatist state then?

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-12-01 02:07pm

montypython wrote:Would that be a corporatist state then?

I don't know what you'd call it. Corporatist state calls to mind some silly cyberpunk cliche of a state where the corporation IS the government. What it really is is just an Americanized version of a modern day third world feudal state, where instead of a handful of families who own everything and jerk the government's puppet strings, you have a handful of companies. Not exactly the same thing (primarily not as brutal, because corporations, as entities aren't interested in power for power's sake the way individuals are), but close enough that nobody here would want to live in it.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-12-01 02:18pm

It's not the size of the government; it's how you use it

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-12-01 02:27pm

I think a lot of people why truly want to reform government along the lines of which you speak - as opposed to, say, college students who identify as libertarians because they find the two larger parties distasteful - truly believe that the government would do better to outsource much of its social agenda to private corporations.

Critics of the privatization of airport security decry potential security leaks and a lack of uniformity; advocates see more efficient personnel driven to innovate and perform because of market pressure.

Critics of handing welfare money to churches for distribution see a denial of the church-state divide; some advocates see it as a utilitarian means of putting the money in the hands of institutions with wider reach and pre-existing means of distribution.

Critics of the government job-search program claim companies have standards different from those at government job training facilities.

Just some examples.

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2004-12-01 06:24pm

I don't know what you'd call it. Corporatist state calls to mind some silly cyberpunk cliche of a state where the corporation IS the government. What it really is is just an Americanized version of a modern day third world feudal state, where instead of a handful of families who own everything and jerk the government's puppet strings, you have a handful of companies. Not exactly the same thing (primarily not as brutal, because corporations, as entities aren't interested in power for power's sake the way individuals are), but close enough that nobody here would want to live in it.

Well. According to Mussilini, "Corporatism is fascism."

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-12-01 06:36pm

Boyish-Tigerlilly wrote:
I don't know what you'd call it. Corporatist state calls to mind some silly cyberpunk cliche of a state where the corporation IS the government. What it really is is just an Americanized version of a modern day third world feudal state, where instead of a handful of families who own everything and jerk the government's puppet strings, you have a handful of companies. Not exactly the same thing (primarily not as brutal, because corporations, as entities aren't interested in power for power's sake the way individuals are), but close enough that nobody here would want to live in it.
Well. According to Mussilini, "Corporatism is fascism."

A ringing endorsement, that. Of course, being a fascist, that's probably exactly what he thought it was...

Archaic` · Post by **Archaic`** » 2004-12-01 07:22pm

To me, the small government of libertarianism is more about reducing the size of the government through elimination of inefficiencies. Fewer overlaps of duties, well defined bounds of authority, and no "undersecretary to the adjunct of the assistent to the deputy joint-vice minister".

Perhaps I can put it another way. There's nothing wrong with a large big-boned government, so long as it's all in proportion, but letting it get obese is wasteful.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2004-12-01 10:54pm

Well, let's start with small things. Why do we have to have the Federal Government levy a tax just so it can give the money from it to the states? A massive amount of money the Federal Government collects in taxes they turn around and hand out to the States in essentially what are aid programmes. Sometimes this money is even used by counties and cities.

Why?

Doesn't it strike you all that it would be more efficient if the relevant government, be it federal, state, county, or local, took the money they needed for their programmes in the form of their taxes, rather than have it collected by some other agency, filtered through it, and given to them?

Entire layers of bureaucracy could be wiped out, vastly improving the efficiency of public works, if those works had to be paid for by taxes that were levied at the level of the government which was performing them. So in that sense, supporting small government just means that you don't want your tax dollars filtered through one--or several--unnecessary layers of bureaucracy which just reduce the percent of each tax dollar which actually reaches a productive project.

Petrosjko · Post by **Petrosjko** » 2004-12-02 01:24am

Therein lies the problem. A company that offers no relevant products or services simply goes out of business, absent outside support.

A bureaucracy that has no relevant product or service can endure forever, so long as it has defenders in the legislature.

My favorite example of the problems of bureaucracy is the DMV, one of the most widely loathed services in the country. Long lines, rude clerks, inefficient service are typical in DMVs across the country. Imagine a company that would survive and thrive long-term by operating in such a fashion...

Now, I'm not proposing to privatize the DMV, I just use it as an example that most everyone who lives in the states is readily familiar with.

Government operations, by their nature, do not optimize efficiency and they do not by and large require proof of results. In many cases, they exist to soak up funding, so congressmen can show that they're bringing home the bacon.

I'm essentially a 'small l' libertarian (or LINO, as L. Neil Smith would term me), who concedes that bureaucracies do have their place, but adding new ones or expanding old ones is always an act that should be regarded with the utmost in dubiousness on the part of the public.

Predator · Post by **Predator** » 2004-12-02 05:21am

The Duchess of Zeon wrote: Doesn't it strike you all that it would be more efficient if the relevant government, be it federal, state, county, or local, took the money they needed for their programmes in the form of their taxes, rather than have it collected by some other agency, filtered through it, and given to them?

If I understand what you're saying, then I think the problem with this is that the federal government, rightly or wrongly wants to be able to essentially redistribute wealth between states. I dont actually have figures for the wealth of individual US states (anyone have any figures?), but it strikes me that states like California and New York are likely vastly wealthier, in total and per capita, than some southern states, maybe Alabama for example.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2004-12-02 05:38am

Predator wrote:
If I understand what you're saying, then I think the problem with this is that the federal government, rightly or wrongly wants to be able to essentially redistribute wealth between states. I dont actually have figures for the wealth of individual US states (anyone have any figures?), but it strikes me that states like California and New York are likely vastly wealthier, in total and per capita, than some southern states, maybe Alabama for example.

Actually it often turns out to be a constitutional "control mechanism". For example, the US federal government cannot constitutionally ban drugs. Solution? Threaten to not give money to the states for important programs unless they all ban drugs. What about alcohol laws? You used to be able to drink at eighteen until the federal government threatened to stop giving money to states that didn't raise the drinking age to twenty-one. That was the same way a federal speed limit was enforced until the mid-90s. Don't like how education in one state is being handled? Just refuse to give them federal education monies.

Or, in otherwords, a massive amount of bureaucratic inefficiency in our government is caused by our government essentially bribing the states to do what it wants. Ending that would obviously be a major help in reducing government size.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-12-02 05:45am

So let's say we get a President elected who really, really wants to balance the budget. He wants to clean the federal house, so to speak. He wants to cut out unnecessary beaucrats, take a chainsaw to the federal budget, eliminate entire civil service departments which serve no purpose.

So. What, exactly, is stopping him? Aren't all the federal beaucratic organizations nominally part of the executive branch? Can't the President simply not request funding for them, and veto Congressional attempts to create, expand, and prevent the destruction of his targeted beaucracies? Just how hard a fight would it be to introduce a greater measure of efficiency into the system?

Imperial Overlord · Post by **Imperial Overlord** » 2004-12-02 06:24am

That's all nice in theory, but in reality the big money goes to bureaucracies that actually do something. And taking a chainsaw to bureaucracy involved in health care or education can result in a lot of damage.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-12-02 09:18am

It's easy to say "just cut out the waste". It's so easy, in fact, that virtually every politician says he'll do it. The problem is that no one is willing to stomach what must be done in order to accomplish that goal: break the public-sector unions. So every politician promises to do it and nothing happens once he gets into office. And rhetoric or not, when the strikes start, governments usually buckle. Sure, you have the occasional notable exception (Ronald Reagan and the ATCs, for example), but by and large, the public-sector unions tend to win.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-12-02 11:26am

Imperial Overlord wrote:That's all nice in theory, but in reality the big money goes to bureaucracies that actually do something. And taking a chainsaw to bureaucracy involved in health care or education can result in a lot of damage.

I challenge you to look at any measure of educational performance in the United States since the Department of Education was established and tell me we could do any worse without it than we have with it.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-12-02 11:33am

Darth Wong wrote:It's easy to say "just cut out the waste". It's so easy, in fact, that virtually every politician says he'll do it. The problem is that no one is willing to stomach what must be done in order to accomplish that goal: break the public-sector unions. So every politician promises to do it and nothing happens once he gets into office. And rhetoric or not, when the strikes start, governments usually buckle. Sure, you have the occasional notable exception (Ronald Reagan and the ATCs, for example), but by and large, the public-sector unions tend to win.

That must be unique to Canada, because in America there's rarely any serious talk of coming down on the unions.

Korvan · Post by **Korvan** » 2004-12-02 12:52pm

Darth Wong wrote:It's easy to say "just cut out the waste". It's so easy, in fact, that virtually every politician says he'll do it. The problem is that no one is willing to stomach what must be done in order to accomplish that goal: break the public-sector unions. So every politician promises to do it and nothing happens once he gets into office. And rhetoric or not, when the strikes start, governments usually buckle. Sure, you have the occasional notable exception (Ronald Reagan and the ATCs, for example), but by and large, the public-sector unions tend to win.

Didn't an Ontario government a few years back do a big cleanup of it's public sector? I remember a big outcry but I can't rmember how it all turned out.

Korvan · Post by **Korvan** » 2004-12-02 12:57pm

My ideal system of government would have all personal taxes collected locally by municipalities. The states/provinces would then tax the municipalities and the feds would tax the states.

Most services would be provided and managed locally with higher levels of government existing only to even out any discrepancies and resolve disputes between the lower governing bodies.

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-12-02 01:30pm

Korvan wrote:Didn't an Ontario government a few years back do a big cleanup of it's public sector? I remember a big outcry but I can't rmember how it all turned out.

Mike Harris' PC government did that, cleaning up the mountain of crap left behind by Bob Rae's NDP government: Ray's attempt to fulfill every socialist fantasy he could think of created an $11 billion deficit and drove businesses away from Ontario, sending our economy down the shitter. Rae's basic policy was "We'll spend our way out of the deficit": yes, he actually said that.

After Harris was elected in 1995 in a landslide, he immediatly dismantled almost all of Rae's programs and encouraged a return of buisness and investment to Ontario, thus turning the $11 billion deficit in to a $3 billion surplus. Despite the outcry the cuts incurred from such groups as teachers' unions, Harris and his "Common Sense Revolution" were popular among Ontario's voters at large, given that he was elected to a second term with an even bigger majority. Sadly, his retirement in 2002 left Ontario in the hands of an inneffectual boob named Ernie Eves, whose indecisivness allowed a far worse boob (Dalton McGuinty) to win the 2003 provincial election. If Harris hadn't retired and instead went for another term, McGuinty wouldn't have stood a chance.

As a side note, the thing that convinced my that only morons can support the NDP is the fact that every NDP supporter I've talked to thinks that Harris was a horrible preimer while Rae was a great one

.

Lord Zentei · Post by **Lord Zentei** » 2004-12-02 01:30pm

Poor districts and rural districts would suffer in such a scenario, as they would be unable to provide the same level of service as rich ones. Redundant levels of government for taxation purposes would not improve efficiency either; the more complex the tax system the more unexpected loopholes usually appear.

Andrew J. · Post by **Andrew J.** » 2004-12-02 04:39pm

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:Doesn't it strike you all that it would be more efficient if the relevant government, be it federal, state, county, or local, took the money they needed for their programmes in the form of their taxes, rather than have it collected by some other agency, filtered through it, and given to them?

Probably. But everyone prefers spending others' money over spending their own.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2004-12-02 05:00pm

Joe wrote:
That must be unique to Canada, because in America there's rarely any serious talk of coming down on the unions.

Which means we're worse off, because nobody even thinks of that.

Quite frankly, I would like to see every single union of government workers eliminated. If they don't like their job conditions they can vote for someone who promises to improve them. They don't need the protection a union has, it's a second layer to them and makes those unions some of the world's worst in terms of veritable extortion.