Author Topic: Small Government, Big Government: A Mature Conversation Herein Awaits  (Read 6049 times)

Kyronea

  • Errare Explorer (+1500)
  • *
  • Posts: 1913
    • View Profile
While ending the drug war and simplifying the tax code don't have any intrinsic connection to small government, the practical effect of such changse in the United States would be a smaller government. The DEA could be dismantled, and the IRS reduced in scale. To maintain the present size of these groups with those changes would be big government for big government's sake.
And to cut them senselessly would be small government for small government's sake, and that is just as bad, if not worse, because it might leave the government unable to perform a potentially critical task, depending on what was cut and why.

Radical_Dreamer

  • Entity
  • Zurvan Surfer (+2500)
  • *
  • Posts: 2778
    • View Profile
    • The Chrono Compendium
While ending the drug war and simplifying the tax code don't have any intrinsic connection to small government, the practical effect of such changse in the United States would be a smaller government. The DEA could be dismantled, and the IRS reduced in scale. To maintain the present size of these groups with those changes would be big government for big government's sake.
And to cut them senselessly would be small government for small government's sake, and that is just as bad, if not worse, because it might leave the government unable to perform a potentially critical task, depending on what was cut and why.

I don't want to derail this thread, but simplifying the tax code and ending the drug war are policies with practical benefits. I'm not saying do either recklessly, or do either because they would shrink the government. I'm saying do them because they should be done. The point I was making is that it was a bit...I'm not sure the word at the moment, but attempting to completely seperate these issues from small government may be valid in the academic sense, but in the practical, they are obvious issues where shrinking the government would be beneficial.

Kyronea

  • Errare Explorer (+1500)
  • *
  • Posts: 1913
    • View Profile

I don't want to derail this thread, but simplifying the tax code and ending the drug war are policies with practical benefits. I'm not saying do either recklessly, or do either because they would shrink the government. I'm saying do them because they should be done. The point I was making is that it was a bit...I'm not sure the word at the moment, but attempting to completely seperate these issues from small government may be valid in the academic sense, but in the practical, they are obvious issues where shrinking the government would be beneficial.
I knew I sho9uldn't have cut that "I'm using these as examples" line...

Of course they are policies with practical benefits, as I outlined myself earlier in the thread. I was simply attempting to use them as examples of what might be cut if people were to just start slashing left and right for the purpose of making government smaller for the sake of it being smaller, which is bad.

Still, you're right...in terms of these actual organizations/departments/what have you, cutting them, done sensibly, would be beneficial, and would result in a smaller government. It would also be more efficient, which gets back to my whole efficient government bit. In this specific instance, government would be made more efficient by making it smaller.

Lord J Esq

  • Moon Stone J
  • Hero of Time (+5000)
  • *
  • Posts: 5463
  • ^_^ "Ayla teach at college level!!"
    • View Profile
While ending the drug war and simplifying the tax code don't have any intrinsic connection to small government, the practical effect of such changse in the United States would be a smaller government. The DEA could be dismantled, and the IRS reduced in scale. To maintain the present size of these groups with those changes would be big government for big government's sake.

You're making the same assumption that Ramsus did: Discontinuation of one program will cause its allotted revenues to not be diverted anywhere else in spending. In theory it may be an arguable point, but in practice that rarely happens. The money gets seized upon for some other use far, far more often than taxes are lowered and overall government spending curtailed--so much so that it wouldn't be right to call it a deviation from the theoretical ideal. It's its own thing.

Radical_Dreamer

  • Entity
  • Zurvan Surfer (+2500)
  • *
  • Posts: 2778
    • View Profile
    • The Chrono Compendium
While ending the drug war and simplifying the tax code don't have any intrinsic connection to small government, the practical effect of such changse in the United States would be a smaller government. The DEA could be dismantled, and the IRS reduced in scale. To maintain the present size of these groups with those changes would be big government for big government's sake.

You're making the same assumption that Ramsus did: Discontinuation of one program will cause its allotted revenues to not be diverted anywhere else in spending. In theory it may be an arguable point, but in practice that rarely happens. The money gets seized upon for some other use far, far more often than taxes are lowered and overall government spending curtailed--so much so that it wouldn't be right to call it a deviation from the theoretical ideal. It's its own thing.

Even if the money does get diverted, that becomes more funding to the programs that get ex-DEA funds, and it is one less major operation that the government is involved in. So while the cost of government doesn't go down, more money is going to other, presumably more just causes, and the government has reduced the scope of its activities. It becomes smaller in staff and functionality, and more efficient in spending, if only because the money is spread to fewer departments.

Lord J Esq

  • Moon Stone J
  • Hero of Time (+5000)
  • *
  • Posts: 5463
  • ^_^ "Ayla teach at college level!!"
    • View Profile
Even if the money does get diverted, that becomes more funding to the programs that get ex-DEA funds, and it is one less major operation that the government is involved in. So while the cost of government doesn't go down, more money is going to other, presumably more just causes, and the government has reduced the scope of its activities. It becomes smaller in staff and functionality, and more efficient in spending, if only because the money is spread to fewer departments.

It's whack-a-mole. A downsize in one area means additional spending in others. Net efficiency and net government scope are each extraneous variables.

ZeaLitY

  • Entity
  • End of Timer (+10000)
  • *
  • Posts: 10797
  • Spring Breeze Dancin'
    • View Profile
    • My Compendium Staff Profile
But I don't think he means big government = big money. Money well spent in a useful program is better than money wasted on bureaucratic, overextended overhead, even if eliminating one program does not reduce net government spending. We should probably define what we mean by big government before splitting hairs.

Hadriel

  • Dimension Crosser (+1000)
  • *
  • Posts: 1044
    • View Profile
Many (or at least some) of the arguments for a big-government "nanny state" center around the precept that people aren't smart enough to figure things out on their own, and require someone to hold their hand.  Now, to be fair, this is true in large measure.  But simply increasing the size of government or mandating greater government oversight of education is not a solution to this problem.

With regards to the whack-a-mole theory, as long as the money is being spent somewhere useful, it's all well and good.

I hold to libertarian beliefs; that is, I believe that people should be free to make their own way in life and to pursue their own happiness, within reason.  But as much as I'd like positive anarchy, where people don't treat each other badly simply because it would not be beneficial to them to do so, the fact is that this system of "government" is not a viable one, and is not likely to become so.  Neither an excessively big nor an excessively small government will produce good results; I'm in favor of the bare minimum size of government necessary to get the job done.  Nowadays, that tends to be pretty big, but it's not a reason to proffer the government even more influence than they already have.

The war on drugs should be ended, and drugs should be legalized.  I don't believe they should be regulated or taxed, either.  The government takes enough of our money as it is, and it has no right to tell me what I should put in my body by my own choice even if it is likely to kill me.  Further, I consider the very idea of an income tax an attempt to morally justify theft, but if there truly is no other way to ensure that society runs, then at least don't spend the money on worthless endeavors.  I'd have to say the most difficult issue here is finding a balance between wanting to help people and being forced to.  I help people because I feel like doing it, and I often don't expect payment in return.  I don't believe that I have a moral duty to do so.  I simply can't stand to see people suffer.  But I'm an abnormality in a lot of ways, and I don't expect everyone to adhere to my particular code of ethics, because I don't believe that any type of morality save the most basic, inalienable rights of human beings should be impressed upon anyone.

What ultimately makes people happy is personal freedom.  In order to build a society where everyone can have lasting happiness, everyone needs to have as much control over their own destinies as possible.  Big government for the sake of big government, as much as it seems like it could be effective with the right people in power, does not offer this option.

Paleontole

  • Earthbound (+15)
  • *
  • Posts: 38
  • Hiding in the Dead Sea
    • View Profile
Sorry, I had to laugh when I saw this Ron Paul picture




So true  8)

Mr. Molecule

  • Porrean (+50)
  • *
  • Posts: 88
    • View Profile
Personal freedom doesn't really equal happiness. Happiness is really a lot more complex than that, and so is personal freedom. Drugs are a good example of how personal freedom can lead to the opposite of happiness! Also, death.

I find that most people that advocate legalizing drugs are white guys who've never toched anything more powerful that caffeine, or maybe alcohol, and are arguing from a purely theotectical perspective. Me a few months ago, for example. But--I've talked to people who have experience with stronger drugs. Generally, at most, they'll advocate legalizing marijuana, which makes sense, since its effects really aren't worse than any number of legal drugs. But legalizing say, cocaine or heroine or meth? Drugs that'll hook you almost immediately and which can have potentially lethal withdrawal symptoms? And how far do we take legalization? Do we allow hard drug manufacture to say, advertise on television? To create a cultural athmosphere accepting or encouraging addiction? Look, obviously the drug war's a bust, but I think most people advocating legalization could do well to give it a long, hard look.

Whack-a-mole-theory is interesting, and very possibly true, but not really constructive. Basically it's saying damned if we do, damned if we don't. If I remember correctly, the question is whether we should have a big government, not whether it's possible to change the government. That's another, and thouroughly more depressing, arguement.

And my thoughts on big government? Glad you asked! We need a fairly big government. Capitalism isn't, as we learn in grade school, synonomous with democracy. Capitalism needs to be checked--Adam Smith be damned. Capitalism DOES show the will of the people--but only in a perfect free market. Things like monopolies and barriers to entry and the tragedy of the commons happen in real life, however, and distort the free market, thus requiring an outside force to check them. Thus, bring in a democratic government, which is, theoretically at least directly answerable to the public!

This of course leads us back to whack-a-mole and whether the government really is still answerable to the people. Is it possible that a bloated, unelected executive bureaucracy and a two-party system that denies the voter any real choice are a mockery of true democracy? As I said, a discussion for a different topic!

Kyronea

  • Errare Explorer (+1500)
  • *
  • Posts: 1913
    • View Profile
Quote from: Mr. Molecule
Personal freedom doesn't really equal happiness. Happiness is really a lot more complex than that, and so is personal freedom. Drugs are a good example of how personal freedom can lead to the opposite of happiness! Also, death.

I find that most people that advocate legalizing drugs are white guys who've never toched anything more powerful that caffeine, or maybe alcohol, and are arguing from a purely theotectical perspective. Me a few months ago, for example. But--I've talked to people who have experience with stronger drugs. Generally, at most, they'll advocate legalizing marijuana, which makes sense, since its effects really aren't worse than any number of legal drugs. But legalizing say, cocaine or heroine or meth? Drugs that'll hook you almost immediately and which can have potentially lethal withdrawal symptoms? And how far do we take legalization? Do we allow hard drug manufacture to say, advertise on television? To create a cultural athmosphere accepting or encouraging addiction? Look, obviously the drug war's a bust, but I think most people advocating legalization could do well to give it a long, hard look.
I'm afraid these appeals will not work. I too have spoken with those who have experience with stronger drugs...one of them being a cousin of mine, on my mother's side. Admittedly he's a cousin that I rarely if ever have any relations with--much like almost all of my southern relatives--but he's a cousin nonetheless.

Part of the problems you're talking about are directly due to the illegality of these drugs. With them being illegal, we have no control over doses, over what the drugs are laced with, the quality of the drugs, and so on and so forth. A lot of the medical problems are due to these drugs being messed with or otherwise tainted by those who don't give a damn about the health and safety of their customers: they're just making money.

A person's body is their own. They have a right to do whatever they wish with their own body, and that includes taking drugs if that is their choice. By legalizing these drugs and regulating them, we can make them much safer for people to take. Will they still be dangerous? Sure. I'm not advocating legalizing the hardcore artificial crazy crap like crystal meth, because that stuff'll kill you no matter how much you regulate it. I am, however, advocating the legalization of all the natural drugs; that is, natural as in derived from plant and/or animal sources, rather than laboratory created.

As for advertising? I say let them advertise the same way we allow tobacco and alcohol companies to advertise.

Remember, the key is that people have the right to make their own decisions and should be allowed to do so. Trying to control them, even if the intent is good as your intent is, will do naught but make the government a big, huge, nanny state, and I for one grew out of needing a nanny a long time ago.

Mr. Molecule

  • Porrean (+50)
  • *
  • Posts: 88
    • View Profile
Hrm, you make some good points. When I wrote that I wasn't really thinking of benefits like oversight of drug manufacturing. My opinion on this issue isn't really fully formed, so thanks for pointing that out.

Still, it doesn't really make government smaller, does it? It just shifts their responsibilities. Now instead of fighting a war they're oversighting an entire new industry, regulating what it can and can't do, where it can and can't advertise. Plus there are the drugs that, under your system, would still be illegal. (speaking of which, care to expand on the artificial/natural dichotomy? It seems a bit arbitrary to me--after all, there are plenty of substances in nature that'll kill you quite dead.)

I guess the upshot is, legalizing (some) drugs increases personal freedom, which is really what you're after with a small government--the amount of personal freedom you have might be a better measuring stick of governmental size than money spent, I don't know. I'm just not convinced that drug use is a valid personal freedom. The social contract between a government and its people does place some responsibilities on the people. The heavy drug user very seldom fulfills these requirements--eg voting, jury duty, not being a total drain on society. It comes down to whether you have the right to abuse yourself. I have my doubts on whether drug use is a legitimate "personal freedom" for the same reasons I have my doubts on whether suicide is a legitimate "personal freedom"--because your life is not wholly your own. Of course, whether the government, which is big and impersonaland prone to slippery slopes, should interfere in matters of self-abuse is what we're arguing. And here I have to say. "I'm not really sure yet." Sorry.

That said, I do think the USA's current war on drugs is being carried out in a stupid and irresponsible manner. It's really pretty ridiculous!

Kyronea

  • Errare Explorer (+1500)
  • *
  • Posts: 1913
    • View Profile
Hrm, you make some good points. When I wrote that I wasn't really thinking of benefits like oversight of drug manufacturing. My opinion on this issue isn't really fully formed, so thanks for pointing that out.
I like being able to educate.
Quote
Still, it doesn't really make government smaller, does it?
No but that wasn't the issue here: the issue was efficiency and removal of something they do not need to do.
Quote
It just shifts their responsibilities. Now instead of fighting a war they're oversighting an entire new industry, regulating what it can and can't do, where it can and can't advertise. Plus there are the drugs that, under your system, would still be illegal. (speaking of which, care to expand on the artificial/natural dichotomy? It seems a bit arbitrary to me--after all, there are plenty of substances in nature that'll kill you quite dead.)
My knowledge about the dichotomy is extremely limited, but basically most of the artificial--as in laboratory created--recreational drugs tend to be extremely potent in much smaller doses than drugs made from natural sources, and as such are far, far easier to overdose on and potentially kill oneself with.
Quote
I guess the upshot is, legalizing (some) drugs increases personal freedom, which is really what you're after with a small government--the amount of personal freedom you have might be a better measuring stick of governmental size than money spent, I don't know. I'm just not convinced that drug use is a valid personal freedom. The social contract between a government and its people does place some responsibilities on the people. The heavy drug user very seldom fulfills these requirements--eg voting, jury duty, not being a total drain on society. It comes down to whether you have the right to abuse yourself. I have my doubts on whether drug use is a legitimate "personal freedom" for the same reasons I have my doubts on whether suicide is a legitimate "personal freedom"--because your life is not wholly your own. Of course, whether the government, which is big and impersonaland prone to slippery slopes, should interfere in matters of self-abuse is what we're arguing. And here I have to say. "I'm not really sure yet." Sorry.
Okay. This is not something I'm going to push on you. Me, I see it as personal choice of being able to do whatever one wishes with thier own body, including self-abuse, if that is their wish. Of course, I would ensure an age limit on these drugs much like with the current legal drugs, so that the decision is made by one who is mature, rather than immature and not fully developed brain-wise.
Quote
That said, I do think the USA's current war on drugs is being carried out in a stupid and irresponsible manner. It's really pretty ridiculous!
Indeed. Hundreds of billions of dollars that could go to so many other far more useful places, such as education, or funding alternative energy sources and subsidizing the creation of stop gap time-buying measures such as vertical farms is simply being wasted while drug lords gleefully rake in personal profit. It's absurd, stupid, and utterly insane.

Lord J Esq

  • Moon Stone J
  • Hero of Time (+5000)
  • *
  • Posts: 5463
  • ^_^ "Ayla teach at college level!!"
    • View Profile
I hold to libertarian beliefs; that is, I believe that people should be free to make their own way in life and to pursue their own happiness, within reason.  But as much as I'd like positive anarchy, where people don't treat each other badly simply because it would not be beneficial to them to do so, the fact is that this system of "government" is not a viable one, and is not likely to become so.  Neither an excessively big nor an excessively small government will produce good results; I'm in favor of the bare minimum size of government necessary to get the job done.  Nowadays, that tends to be pretty big, but it's not a reason to proffer the government even more influence than they already have.

Your introduction there is almost self-defeating. First you profess that your motivation for wanting the government to be a certain size is due to your personal preference for "positive anarchy" rather than stewardship and defense of the people, which disqualifies your authority on civil grounds. (Sadly, your mistake was being too honest...a mistake you will learn with time not to make, which is a shame.)

Next, you further undermine you position by saying that you favor the smallest effective government. So does anybody who tackles government from a civil perspective rather than an ideological one, myself included. Such an assertion is meaningless, and in its meaninglessness even becomes a liability. The discussion hinges on what constitutes "effective."

Lastly, you fold your entire tent in the last line, admitting that the effective size of the government "nowadays" tends to be big. I certainly don't mean to be hard on you, but your argument is off to a very poor start.

The war on drugs should be ended, and drugs should be legalized.  I don't believe they should be regulated or taxed, either.  The government takes enough of our money as it is, and it has no right to tell me what I should put in my body by my own choice even if it is likely to kill me.

I don't have a very strong opinion on this--or, rather, I have two extremely strong, competing opinions that prevent me from having an overall opinion--but for the time being I would suggest the compromise that drugs remain illegal (except for medical marijuana), but that enforcement and punishment of nonviolent drug offenses be greatly reduced. I might also favor changes in the law that allow states and local governments to fund "clean drug" programs as a part of their healthcare systems, but I'm not certain of that.

In any case, drugs appear to be a classic example of a narrow, relatively well-defined issue that demonstrates a philosophy of larger government versus smaller government. But there are nothing of the sort. The issue is more complicated than anybody has given it credit for in this thread:

I support, like you Hadriel, the right of people to control their own bodies. But that's not the real issue here. The real issue is the acquisition, possession, or distribution of dangerous substances. This, in contrast to bodily self-control, should be regulated--and heavily. Such control is vital to, variously, human health, public safety, ecological integrity, and sometimes even civil stability. Drug control is related to issues like toxic waste disposal and gun control, both of which concern the status of dangerous substances (or materials).

If you want to kill yourself, that's fine. You don't need illegal drugs for that. The reason drugs are illegal is that practically all of them are habit-forming, and the vast majority of them are clearly detrimental to human health. They're also expensive as all heck, and remain so even in places like the Netherlands where many drugs are legal to use. This triple combination is very harmful to society, because people get snagged into these spirals of chemical dependency that sap them both of their health and their money. This becomes not only a failure of society to care for its people, but a drain on society because of the inevitable expenses involved with policing and treating drug abusers and drug dealing operations.

The government ought to be empowered to control hazardous substances, and usually it is. Rightly so. With drugs, most of the opposition, ironically, comes from the leftist half of the spectrum--people who either have a personal stake in drug legalization, or support the drug-friendly lifestyle either in practice or in principle. I propose to you that these people have a bias in their judgment that renders them less fit to decide on the issue.

I don't know the exactitudes of the law, so there may be some room for a legal rebuttal here, but as I see it, the pro-legalization camp is begging the question by trying to make this a case of self-control when in fact the sticking point is substance control.

Further, I consider the very idea of an income tax an attempt to morally justify theft, but if there truly is no other way to ensure that society runs, then at least don't spend the money on worthless endeavors.
Income taxation is one of the most progressive taxes of all. Under a well-designed tax code, people who take more in income, pay proportionally more in taxes. This is how it ought to be. The income tax is the single, cleanest tax I can imagine. The ugly taxes are the ones that put disproportionate pressure on the least-enfranchised people. A good example of this is the sales tax. A billionaire and a pauper will pay the same tax on a given taxable sale, yet to the billionaire that tax will be negligible while to the pauper it may be insurmountable. (This is similar to one of the most ugly secrets of all those people who win prizes and stuff on television game shows.)

But in any case, the inherent concept of taxation is never "theft," and only the most anti-government radicals would say otherwise. I like the way Bill Gates' dad put it, in the Seattle Times a few years back:

Quote from: Seattle Times
The father of the world's richest man does not subscribe to the Great Man Theory, which lionizes individuals who pull themselves up by their bootstraps.

Nobody makes it alone, he says. A person's physical comfort and opportunity have almost everything to do with the society into which he is born. Lucky if it's America; unlucky if it's Bangladesh or Botswana.

Imagine, he says.

"You'll never have a million dollars, never $100,000, never even $5,000, however smart or ambitious you are. The conditions of society don't allow for that. And you'll probably die of AIDS.

"That's the way it is. Those institutions and those phenomena of an orderly society don't exist in a vacuum. They exist because people pay taxes. If you stopped, all those things would die the next day. The police, the courts, securities markets."

He's right. And, in a beautiful nutshell, that is why economic conservatism doesn't work. Tax haters are either greedy, or ignorant--or both.


What ultimately makes people happy is personal freedom.  In order to build a society where everyone can have lasting happiness, everyone needs to have as much control over their own destinies as possible.

This is not true. In fact, personal freedom when thrust upon people who are not prepared for it, results in crime and oppression externally and mental anguish internally. It is one of the (many) reasons that democracy has not flowered at the barrel of a gun in the heavily Islamic countries of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Humans are creatures of habit, routine, comfort, and familiarity. I suspect most animals are. "Personal freedom" is a repudiation of that mindset, and cannot be taken lightly. Despite America's endless rhetoric about freedom and liberty, these things are not the beginning of a happy existence. They require many prerequisites. Naked freedom is a menace, not a virtue. I like the way my British friend Stephen once put it to me:

Quote
Ask not, "Free from what?" but "Free for what?"

You anti-government types talk and talk about being free from the government's controlling hand as a fundamental ideal, yet I have not heard in this lifetime a coherent, realistic description of what those freedoms would then achieve at that same, fundamental level.

Burning Zeppelin

  • God of War (+3000)
  • *
  • Posts: 3137
    • View Profile
    • Delicate Cutters
See, I wanted to say a lot of that, but I knew that Lord J would come and say it better than me :(