About small government...

[jarofthoughts]

There is a point that have always confused me a bit about certain debaters in US politics, and I am genuinely asking if anyone can explain this to me.
See, it has always made me wonder when someone argues against universal healthcare, public school funding, and the like using the argument that they want a small government that interferes as little as possible in the lives of the citizens.
So far the argument holds up somewhat, but then they start making exceptions when it comes to whether people should be allowed to have abortions and things like military spending.

How does any of this hold up logically?

I mean, you can't BOTH want a small government AND have the largest military on the planet, which makes up a considerable amount of the US budget, can you?

 

[tytlyf]

The talking point of 'small government' is a propaganda technique. When mentioned by media outlets, there aren't any examples/specifics given.

When I hear 'small government,' I immediately think of corporations and de-regulation. That's probably the most accurate description

 

[Curious George]

There is a point that have always confused me a bit about certain debaters in US politics, and I am genuinely asking if anyone can explain this to me.
See, it has always made me wonder when someone argues against universal healthcare, public school funding, and the like using the argument that they want a small government that interferes as little as possible in the lives of the citizens.
So far the argument holds up somewhat, but then they start making exceptions when it comes to whether people should be allowed to have abortions and things like military spending.

How does any of this hold up logically?

I mean, you can't BOTH want a small government AND have the largest military on the planet, which makes up a considerable amount of the US budget, can you?

The traditional group that is for small government is libertarian. Libertarian groups are generally pro-choice. The term small government is not necessarily small, but limited. One of the things that most people generally agree is that the government, regardless of other limitations, needs to be responsible for protecting the states from foreign powers, hence big military. But some even want smaller that.

 

[George-ananda]

How does any of this hold up logically?

The argument they make is that government's duty is to protect us (Defense and anti-Abortion). Government's job is not to get involved in our daily lives (Schools, Health Care. Welfare, etc.).

 

[Revoltingest]

There is a point that have always confused me a bit about certain debaters in US politics, and I am genuinely asking if anyone can explain this to me.
See, it has always made me wonder when someone argues against universal healthcare, public school funding, and the like using the argument that they want a small government that interferes as little as possible in the lives of the citizens.
So far the argument holds up somewhat, but then they start making exceptions when it comes to whether people should be allowed to have abortions and things like military spending.

How does any of this hold up logically?

I mean, you can't BOTH want a small government AND have the largest military on the planet, which makes up a considerable amount of the US budget, can you?

"Small gov" types come in different flavors.
You'll see possible contradictions if you lump them all together.

Personally, I favor a large & strong military, but only for defense.
Ours is costlier than we need for this purpose.
But we play policeman to the world, which is big government think.

 

[Father Heathen]

How does any of this hold up logically?

It doesn't. There is a lot of double standards and cognitive dissonance among mainstream conservatives (republicans, mostly) in the U.S.

You have other types who favor small government, but tend to be more consistent about it; i.e. libertarians.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

There is a point that have always confused me a bit about certain debaters in US politics, and I am genuinely asking if anyone can explain this to me.
See, it has always made me wonder when someone argues against universal healthcare, public school funding, and the like using the argument that they want a small government that interferes as little as possible in the lives of the citizens.
So far the argument holds up somewhat, but then they start making exceptions when it comes to whether people should be allowed to have abortions and things like military spending.

How does any of this hold up logically?

I mean, you can't BOTH want a small government AND have the largest military on the planet, which makes up a considerable amount of the US budget, can you?

I agree, but whittle away all the excess pork, and you are eventually left with the military, to deal with other governments!

 

[esmith]

My idea of a small government is turning most of the power back to the States. The only thing that the federal government should be involved in is those dealing with the major departments of the government. For example Defense, State, Justice (somewhat restrictive here), Treasury and a few others.

 

[tytlyf]

My idea of a small government is turning most of the power back to the States.

Republicans are the party that talk about 'small government' without providing examples as to what that means. Since republicans only care about corporate policies, 'small government' to them is less regulation. Corporate policy is in favor of states rights too, this allows corporations to buy up local government officials (which is easier) to get what they want done.
Either way, smaller government when mentioned by republicans has nothing to do with helping the middle class.

You'll also notice RW media make the false claim that democrats are the party of 'big government' without providing examples.

 

[Stevicus]

How does any of this hold up logically?

Most of the time, it doesn't hold up, nor is it very consistent, as you and many others have noticed. A lot of people view the government in the same way some people are said to relate to the police: They hate them until they need them, and then they love them.

I mean, you can't BOTH want a small government AND have the largest military on the planet, which makes up a considerable amount of the US budget, can you?

It's not necessarily the same people or factions who want small government and the largest military on the planet. "Small government" may not be a very descriptive term anyway.

What people want in a government is not so much a matter of "size," but efficiency. Some believe that there's too much waste and inefficiency in government. The bureaucracy is too bloated and oversized, not to mention widespread corruption and too many government officials feathering their own nests. The late Senator Proxmire used to give out his "Golden Fleece Award," which would cite the most outrageous examples of government waste and inefficiency. Plus, government employees get a wide array of benefits, perks, and pension plans which their private sector counterparts can only dream of. (If every employer offered the same health benefits as the government gives its employees, Obamacare would have been totally unnecessary.)

Apart from efficiency, the other major factor in motivating "small government" is a matter of rights. A smaller government is less likely to violate an individual's rights. It doesn't have to be literally "smaller," but more restrained and less likely to hassle people. Most people prefer to be left alone and don't want to be bothered by an intrusive government meddling in their private lives.

As for having the largest military on the planet, it does seem that it would contradict the notion of small government. In addition, those who support a large military also ostensibly support a large national security state, large police departments, and an oversized corrections system. Their idea of "small government" involves cutting in every other area, such as in transportation, education, social services, healthcare, etc. As a result, our roads are strewn with potholes, our bridges are collapsing, our schools are graduating functional illiterates, our social services are abysmal, and our healthcare system has the highest price with the lowest quality.

But overall, the idea of "small government" is a pipe dream and a false promise. Fact is, the mostly conservative and capitalist business community has grown dependent upon government pork. Even in the military, there are some who believe that the military can still accomplish its mission without being so large. Some advocate a modern, yet "lean and mean" fighting force, as opposed to the behemoth we're now feeding. The Pentagon is often thwarted whenever they propose cuts by closing bases which are deemed unnecessary. But that's when Congress starts balking, as they don't want to lose the economic benefits of having a large military base in their districts. The biggest and highest-paying employers in my area are a state-owned university (which thrives on government contracts and grants), a federally-owned air force base, and a large military contractor.

 

[jonathan180iq]

My idea of a small government is turning most of the power back to the States. The only thing that the federal government should be involved in is those dealing with the major departments of the government. For example Defense, State, Justice (somewhat restrictive here), Treasury and a few others.

Like Environment, Education, and Health?

States have the ability to do and pass all kinds of things at their level. I don't agree that their status needs to be upgraded while downgrading the uniformity that the Federal Government provides, even if it's cumbersome at times, which is what I think most of these "States Rights" advocates are inadvertently arguing for. Environmental, Health, and Educational standards cannot and should not be dependent on the decisions made at the State level, and divided by arbitrary state borders.

While I understand, and can be sympathetic, to the argument that people who live in an area know whats best for the area, I think it's also a short-sighted argument. Without a national standard for education, for example, legislative decisions made in places that do not value evidence-based curriculum will have a very tangible negative impact on the future of the surrounding areas as those students grow into citizenry. The same is true for Environmental standards and Health. I think the EPA's enforcement of river regulations along tributaries of main waterways is a perfect example. People are losing their minds about EPA enforcement where they say is shouldn't belong... But water flows downstream, right? How are we supposed to keep main waterways clean without enforcing like-standards in tributaries? What gets emitted in a Georgia factory affects more than just Georgians. I could make examples for health, and many other things, but I think you get the point.

State boundaries do not reflect geographic and cultural realities. Inconsistent application of regulations near border towns alone shoot down the idea of the value of dismantling federal offices.

 

[esmith]

Like Environment, Education, and Health?

Nope, of the two only Health needs to remain federal, the other two can be done away with.

 

[tytlyf]

Nope, of the two only Health needs to remain federal, the other two can be done away with.

Why? How does it affect you one way or the other?

 

[esmith]

Why? How does it affect you one way or the other?

why do you want to know, do they affect you?

 

[Valjean]

I agree, but whittle away all the excess pork, and you are eventually left with the military, to deal with other governments!

But isn't the military the biggest barrel of pork? Why do we need such a huge military, when there is no existential, external threat?
Frankly, I'd be happy to cede the army, navy and air force to the UN and keep only the national and coast guards, which might actually be useful.

 

[esmith]

But isn't the military the biggest barrel of pork? Why do we need such a huge military, when there is no existential, external threat?
Frankly, I'd be happy to cede the army, navy and air force to the UN and keep only the national and coast guards, which might actually be useful.

there is no existential, external threat because we do have a large military. Every consider that?

 

[esmith]

But isn't the military the biggest barrel of pork? Why do we need such a huge military, when there is no existential, external threat?
Frankly, I'd be happy to cede the army, navy and air force to the UN and keep only the national and coast guards, which might actually be useful.

There is not existential, external threat because we do have a large military. Every consider that? Didn't think so.

 

[Valjean]

Our goods and services are going to be be supplied by someone. We can do it all ourselves (back to the Pleistocene), we can rely on for-profit businesses and corporations (bad track record, there), or we can organize an open, participatory, non-profit co-op for our mutual benefit.

Pick one.

 

[Valjean]

there is no existential, external threat because we do have a large military. Every consider that?

Au contraire. The military is what's generated any threat or anti-American hatred that exists.
The military maintains the Empire. It does not protect us. It's corporate muscle.
No-one's set to invade us. I'm afraid you've been duped.

There are lots of countries in the world. None has a military capacity even approaching that of the US, yet, curiously, none seem so paranoid as the US.
Perhaps the purpose of this massively oversized military is not to protect us...

Costa Rica is smaller than West Virginia. It has no military. It's prosperous because the government uses its income to benefit the people. The people feel secure.

 

[esmith]

Au contraire. The military is what's generated any threat or anti-American hatred that exists.
The military maintains the Empire. It does not protect us. It's corporate muscle.
No-one's set to invade us. I'm afraid you've been duped.

Well everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Even thought their opinion is misguided

There are lots of countries in the world. None has a military capacity even approaching that of the US, yet, curiously, none seem so paranoid as the US.
Perhaps the purpose of this massively oversized military is not to protect us..

.
Well then why are you and others so fixated on the Russian threat?
The reason most countries do not have the military capacity that the US has is that after WWII countries started relying of the US for the majority of their protection. Maybe if those countries that are not contributing their fair share to their own protection it is possible that the US could scale back.

Costa Rica is smaller than West Virginia. It has no military. It's prosperous because the government uses its income to benefit the people. The people feel secure.

that is because they can count on the US to have their back. Every hear of the Monro Doctrine.