Jump to content

The Political Ideology of Small Government


Ser Vlad

Recommended Posts

As I understand the small government ideology, a big part of its philosophical heritage allegedly comes from the founding fathers, who allegedly wanted a government that had significant amounts of checks and balances that prevented the abuse of power toward the private citizen. Am I correct in this? Is the primary motivation for small government the concern that a large governmeet, via the centralization of power, can become oppresize?

If so, what I don't understand is why an equivalent fear of large multinational corporations doesn't exist. The American constitution itself obviously can't historically have deal with corporations, because the didn't exist at the time. But if the founding motivation for the United States was to avoid exploitation by a centralization of power, then shouldn't the fact that corporations effectively do the very same thing be absolutely terrifying? While it's true that the kind of coercive power a corporation has is different than the government (legistlative vs. economic) to me that doesn't seem to be a difference in kind.

I may well be wrong, but to me, it seems that those who advocate small government often do not advocate a similar restriction on corporations, and I'm curious as to why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If so, what I don't understand is why an equivalent fear of large multinational corporations doesn't exist.

Well, Eisenhower tried to warn us about the military-industrial complex, at least. Of course if someone tried to express those kinds of sentiments in a speech now, he'd be branded an un-American socialist clown. By Democrats.

The American constitution itself obviously can't historically have deal with corporations, because the didn't exist at the time. But if the founding motivation for the United States was to avoid exploitation by a centralization of power, then shouldn't the fact that corporations effectively do the very same thing be absolutely terrifying? While it's true that the kind of coercive power a corporation has is different than the government (legistlative vs. economic) to me that doesn't seem to be a difference in kind.

That's not true. Corporations were chartered as far back as the 14th century, and the British East India Company certainly operated as a law unto itself in India during the days of the Constitution's framing. I find it more likely to believe that our hallowed and forever-to-be-praised Founding Fathers were less concerned with the power of corporations because, well, they were privileged and powerful plutocrats themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I understand the small government ideology, a big part of its philosophical heritage allegedly comes from the founding fathers, who allegedly wanted a government that had significant amounts of checks and balances that prevented the abuse of power toward the private citizen. Am I correct in this? Is the primary motivation for small government the concern that a large governmeet, via the centralization of power, can become oppresize?

I think most small government conservatives would agree with that.

If so, what I don't understand is why an equivalent fear of large multinational corporations doesn't exist. The American constitution itself obviously can't historically have deal with corporations, because the didn't exist at the time. But if the founding motivation for the United States was to avoid exploitation by a centralization of power, then shouldn't the fact that corporations effectively do the very same thing be absolutely terrifying? While it's true that the kind of coercive power a corporation has is different than the government (legistlative vs. economic) to me that doesn't seem to be a difference in kind.

You could probably fill a book trying to explain that properly. I'll just give one very short answer: there is only one federal government, but lots and lots of different corporations, so the power of any one corporation is far more diffused than the power of the government.

Oh, a second reason. Jackboots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could probably fill a book trying to explain that properly. I'll just give one very short answer: there is only one federal government, but lots and lots of different corporations, so the power of any one corporation is far more diffused than the power of the government.

Oh, a second reason. Jackboots.

You'd think so if you never paid attention to history I'm sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may well be wrong, but to me, it seems that those who advocate small government often do not advocate a similar restriction on corporations, and I'm curious as to why.

Just to add a thought here. A lot of small government conservatives think that big government actually makes large corporations even more powerful and dangerous because they end up on the same side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I worry more about "fair" government than "big" government; a small government where the former is lacking is equally troublesome for its citizens. It is the failure to distinguish between the two is the reason why small-government conservatives aren't being taken seriously much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to add a thought here. A lot of small government conservatives think that big government actually makes large corporations even more powerful and dangerous because they end up on the same side.

Which, again, wouldn't seem to jive with history.

Unless you are proposing a "small government" that is also highly regulatory. Which would seem to fly in the face of any idea of what consitutes a "small government" I've ever seen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, it was certainly a know phenomenon, take these words from, so to speak, the horse's mouth:

"People of the same trade seldom meet, evne for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends with a conspiracy against the public."

Of couse, Ol' Adam wasn't exactly "Small government" in that sense either, but whatever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shryke,

Corporations cannot exist without the assent and cooperation of government. Large corporations are simply private collectivisation of property with the assent of government.

And this is relevant, how?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Shryke mentioned, from a historical point of view, the power corporations wield is much greater than it is supposed to be if we follow the model: 1 government = centralized power; many corporations = diffused power.

The problem is that governments throughout history (as far as 14-15th century) have often been directly dependent on corporations. Even monarchies didn't have enough money to finance large projects like the expeditions to the new world, the war Napoleon I waged against Prussia and Russia and etc.

ETA: I'd recommend Carroll Quigley - Tragedy and Hope, if you're further interested in the matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It wasn't really checks and balances that was meant to keep the federal government limited. Those were to prevent the federal power from being collected into too few hands, or to prevent it from being exercised in an arbitrary and capricious manner. The idea was to diffuse the federal power across the three branches to prevent tyranny. This focuses on who exercises federal power, not the scope of the power itself.

You find textual basis for a limited government in the specific enumeration of powers of the federal government. But this has meant far less as time goes on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shryke,

It's relevant because without government corporations can't exist. In other words corporations are dependent upon goverment sufference for continued existence. Addtionally, when we're talking about large corporations they can use big government and big regulation to keep small businesses from competing with big businesses with regualtions that small businesses, by there very nature and scale, are less equiped to deal with than big businesses.

I see big corporations and big government parties in a symbiotic relationship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alcibiades,

It wasn't really checks and balances that was meant to keep the federal government limited. Those were to prevent the federal power from being collected into too few hands, or to prevent it from being exercised in an arbitrary and capricious manner. The idea was to diffuse the federal power across the three branches to prevent tyranny. This focuses on who exercises federal power, not the scope of the power itself.

You find textual basis for a limited government in the specific enumeration of powers of the federal government. But this has meant far less as time goes on.

No. The idea was to limit the power of the Federal Government to specific fairly narrowly defined areas. See the tenth amendment and the Federalist papers on the nature of the power of the Federal Government. If you want to expand the power of the Federal Government amend the Constitution. The 16th amendment has certianly increased it's power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

when i think small government, i fondly recall the days of yorkist stoure against the lancastrian tiraunte in the grete royame of ingelonde, an era when private armyis russhed their chevauchee across the courtelayges of the comyns, held recreauntes in their daunger, megre the hedes of the glatyssaunte myssefortuned, no accourde to be brokeryed by the ryche, no scape to armytages, the londis afyryed by faytoures and noyous maystery, their hedes clave unto even the pappys those who rode togedirs sanz lycence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alcibiades,

No. The idea was to limit the power of the Federal Government to specific fairly narrowly defined areas. See the tenth amendment and the Federalist papers on the nature of the power of the Federal Government. If you want to expand the power of the Federal Government amend the Constitution. The 16th amendment has certianly increased it's power.

Except that there was disagreement pretty much from the very start. Madison might have had fairly good idea of what he wanted the Constitution to mean, but he had to that through a couple of hundred delegates with their own views.

The idea that there was some kind of uniform "meaning"of the constitution seems to me to be greatly anachronistic and miss the entire point. (ALso, I suspect people who think like that has never had to try to draft a document in a committee)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could probably fill a book trying to explain that properly. I'll just give one very short answer: there is only one federal government, but lots and lots of different corporations, so the power of any one corporation is far more diffused than the power of the government.

However, the people elect the heads of government; no so with the heads of corporations. I'll warrant Lehman Brothers and Enron and AIG have done far more economic damage than the federal government could ever get away with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shryke,

It's relevant because without government corporations can't exist. In other words corporations are dependent upon goverment sufference for continued existence. Addtionally, when we're talking about large corporations they can use big government and big regulation to keep small businesses from competing with big businesses with regualtions that small businesses, by there very nature and scale, are less equiped to deal with than big businesses.

I see big corporations and big government parties in a symbiotic relationship.

Except this is all irrelevant unless "small government" now means "no corporations".

Assuming it doesn't, small government does nothing to limit the power of corporations. In fact, it's worse.

Your assertion that large corporations use government to keep small business now is unsupported and, again, not relevant. Those large corporations came from somewhere after all. Absent the government, they don't go away. They simply assert their power unfettered.

Supporters of small government are the types who look at a state with serious crime issues, where the police are under-payed, under-funded, under-equipped and, thus, corrupt and where the criminal element has all the money and main-power .... and conclude that the solution is less police.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...