We all claim that we're seeking small government, right? And by small, I mean "smaller than we currently have." Some of us think the government should get out of education, some of us think the government should get out of drug prohibition, some of us think the government should get out of social security, some of us think the government should get out of marriage. And so on. Bottom line, virtually all of us think the government should stop doing a lot of what it's doing. And there have been a lot of discussions on exactly what stuff should no longer be done, at least not by the government. But what I'd like to discuss here is, how do you think it will work out for people? What do you see as the light at the end of the smaller government tunnel? The way I see it, there are three camps: (Of course, there are probably more that I just haven't thought of yet, which is why I'm not bothering to make this a poll ... also, I'm not a politician so I don't really care about the statistics ...) Camp #1: The Altruists This camp believes that smaller government should be sought because it will work out well for everyone, that too much government activity is inhibiting the people and that most people, at least, will be better off without government's interference. Camp #2: The Selfish/Vindictive Bastards This camp believes that smaller government will work out pretty lousy, possibly disastrously, for most people. But they're pretty sure that it will work out well for themselves, because they think they're Mad Max and everyone else is Pee-Wee Herman and they've just been itching for the failure of law and order so that they can set themselves up as a local warlord, or something. Camp #3: The Idealists This camp doesn't really care whether smaller government works out better for people or not. They're not even concerned with their own welfare. They just believe very strongly that the government is inherently wrong in most things and that the virtue of life without government outweighs the practical costs. The ideal of freedom trumps all other concerns. Which camp would you put yourself in?
The term "small government" is a bit too ambiguous. I don't fall into any of your 3 arbitrary categories. Capitalism is the proper social system consonant with the requirements of man's life. This might seem to you to be a mixture of elements from categories #1 and #2. What would you call this?
I'm for the type of smaller federal government who will follow the obvious guidelines established in the Constitution, you know...the law of this land. I'm for the smaller government who respects the rights of the states and the citizens of this country. A smaller government who is not sold out to corporate interests and pick their crony partners in crime. One that does not give corporations incentives to offshore, and bailout failed companies and filthy rich bankers in this odd case of socialism. One that does not have military bases all over the world and start unjustifiable wars. One that does not sell guns to drug cartels from another country. One that does not invade the privacy of the US citizens and harass them in public places for fears of terror, when they leave our borders open. We're chasing phantoms all over the globe and ignoring the beast in our own back yard. -Serpico
No. And some of us (me) say all of the above. This camp doesn't exist. Even the most hardened libertarian believes that some people need more help than others. We just believe we can meet those needs through charity in such a way that doesn't foster unnecessary dependence. This camp doesn't exist either. There is no sizeable element, much less a "camp" of people who want the law of the jungle. Small government advocates want small government precisely because we believe in human rights; that an orderly society protects people's rights, but otherwise leaves them alone. You confuse the libertarian mindset with that of a criminal. And finally....this camp doesn't exist. Anarchists are few and far between and no libertarian thinks that government itself should be abolished or is inherently evil. Far from not caring if small government works, we have the firm confidence of knowing that there are certain things government does well and it should be confined to those functions. Silly question since you listed 3 ficticious "camps". You are a statist that has created a false impression of your political opponents and would rather believe that fiction than the truth. This thread doesn't even skirt the shoals of intellectual discourse. It's rather pathetic.
I'm more of a pragmatist than any of your options. The bigger government gets, the more tyrannical it gets. Although a certain amount of government is required to protect the rights and liberties of the citizens, too much government leads to a worse tyranny than you would have without any government. That is why I'm a fan of a very limited government, not altruism, not selfishness, not idealism, just pragmatism.
There is at least a degree of rational selfishness motivating you, I think. Statism jeopardizes your life as an individual and it is in your self interest to endorse a system that upholds and protects YOUR rights.
You believe that those needs can be met through charity. But will they? Will the people that you currently accuse of being dependent on the government be better off without it? If that's the case, then you can put yourself in camp #1. There are some posters around here that I think would disagree with you. But I'd like to think you're right. Too practical for that one, eh? Probably good. Nah, I just asked a question. It sounds to me like you would place yourself in camp #1 if you weren't so busy looking for an argument.
But pragmatism toward what goal? That's the question. Do you believe that smaller government will benefit the people as whole? Yourself in particular? Or is it just an ideal?
It would be better for everyone, except those who desire control. There is a measure of selfishness as well as altruism in the idea. It would be better for me, but would be better for most everyone else as well.
I'm in camp 3. While I do believe that freedom benefits everyone more than tyranny, that's just a fortunate by-product. Let me ask you a question: Say you've got 2 slaves. One who is well-cared for by his master and one who escaped North and is scratching out a menial existence. Which one is better off?
Ah, an idealist! I think there's something to be said for placing the metaphysical above the practical.
What you offer is: 1. Utilitarian, 2. Sociopathic (which includes most of the people that you have voted for, as they'd be gunning for the job of warlord if that was the route to power) or, 3. Moralistic Put me in the moralistic camp. Violence against peaceful people is wrong regardless of the intent, nor does the good intention justify the means to the intended end.
