Jump to content

The Political Ideology of Small Government


Ser Vlad

Recommended Posts

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)

"Originalism" does not require understanding the subjective intent of individual Founders. That's a strawman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

reminds me of an article in the current harper's, regarding how the teabaggers have more or less taken over arizona, and that, while the news stupidly focuses on the retrograde statutes therein about mexicans, the real story is how horribly the state has been governed, such that even the state capitol building has been privatized and then leased back by the public, simply to pay the debts that have accumulated while the 'baggers have cut taxes for no reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

True.

Politicians have always sat on the boards of Corporations as advisors and been significant shareholders at the very least, so where's the differing line? It does not exist people. These people who are supposed to regulate corporations to protect the "weak" are the very same ones who everyone is supposed to be protected from. I find this hilarious.

Great thing is we're so bought off here in the economically better off parts of the world resting on the riches of African gold, diamonds, oil; on the manufacturing base which was so long ago moved to East Asian countries, and the "new" IT and call centre service industry in the Indian subcontinent. (Or industries at home resting on non-union temporary workers sucking them dry.)

Government is not the answer in any shape or form, I await the day humanity matures, when individuals throw off the shackles of their subjugation, a continual subjugatation of ourselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Corporations must sell a product or service to willing customers to raise revenue. If the product or service is not purchased, then the corporation goes out of business. A government, by contrast, raises revenue through taxation. It is not possible to (legally) evade taxation, if the government determines that you are one of those to be taxed; while a consumer has a choice of what he or she will purchase and where he or she will purchase it from.

This is only true as long as government enforces it. Again, see the BEI, he VOC, etc. There's nothing *special* about corporations: They're just legally pooled resources (with some specific quirks they'll act in any way they (or their owners/managers/shareholders) feel like, absent government interference.

Remember Adam Smith's point: While the public good is served by the free market, *merchants have no interet in entering into a free market* and will try to avoid it if at all possible.

Occasionally this means purchasing an army and shooting the competitors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Galactus,

This is only true as long as government enforces it. Again, see the BEI, he VOC, etc. There's nothing *special* about corporations: They're just legally pooled resources (with some specific quirks they'll act in any way they (or their owners/managers/shareholders) feel like, absent government interference.

Remember Adam Smith's point: While the public good is served by the free market, *merchants have no interet in entering into a free market* and will try to avoid it if at all possible.

Occasionally this means purchasing an army and shooting the competitors.

I heard a story last night that claimed organized crime is a new "superpower" on the planet. As much as I crave the free market I recognize that a market completely free of government to inhibit the worst predilictions of individuals in that market could very well end up looking like a mafia protection racket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Galactus,

I heard a story last night that claimed organized crime is a new "superpower" on the planet. As much as I crave the free market I recognize that a market completely free of government to inhibit the worst predilictions of individuals in that market could very well end up looking like a mafia protection racket.

Organized crime can't exist without political support

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would look for ways to limit the power and grow of corporations to ta logarithmic line if at all possible not by taxes.

Would avoid too big to fail.

Remember that thing some king did when asked how to be a great ruler. He went out and cut the grass to the same size.

Diffuse power whereever you find it accumulated should be the function of government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Corporations must sell a product or service to willing customers to raise revenue. If the product or service is not purchased, then the corporation goes out of business. A government, by contrast, raises revenue through taxation. It is not possible to (legally) evade taxation, if the government determines that you are one of those to be taxed; while a consumer has a choice of what he or she will purchase and where he or she will purchase it from.

If you quit buying gasoline from those "evil oil companies", they would go out of business. Of course, you would be limited in your transportation choices.

2. Corporations have, as their sole goal (essentially), to maximize profit for their shareholders by selling their goods and/or services. Governments do not have the profit motive, nor do they sell goods or services. Rather, governments "provide for the public good" (ie, roads, armies, and however else a citizenry may define such). These services benefit "all", without regard to whether or not the citizen wants the service or can pay for it.

3. Governments can be voted out of power.

Rather a crucial difference, don't you think? I can refuse to buy a company's products, but I have absolutely no say in the company's policy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3. Governments can be voted out of power.

Only if they accede to the result.

There's also the question of individual rights that is completely separate from the ability of a majority to vote a government out of power. If 55% of the citizenry want a really big government, and 45% don't, the theoretical chance that the government can be voted out of power isn't much consolation to the 45%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only if they accede to the result.

There's also the question of individual rights that is completely separate from the ability of a majority to vote a government out of power. If 55% of the citizenry want a really big government, and 45% don't, the theoretical chance that the government can be voted out of power isn't much consolation to the 45%.

Right, right...you and Sharron Angle are both worried about the federal government eradicating democracy.

As to this 55-45 thing, let's not overstate the case. In our democracy, 41% of senators have been able to shut down a good deal of the agenda of the other 59%, in everything from health insurance reform to energy policy. I don't think the rights of the minority are really in danger in this nation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, right...you and Sharron Angle are both worried about the federal government eradicating democracy.

As to this 55-45 thing, let's not overstate the case. In our democracy, 41% of senators have been able to shut down a good deal of the agenda of the other 59%, in everything from health insurance reform to energy policy. I don't think the rights of the minority are really in danger in this nation.

I did not say that was happening in the U.S. I was addressing the conceptual point someone made that we shouldn't be concerned about a too powerful goverment because it can could be voted out by a majority.

My response to that was that such a benefit is of little value if you're in the minority. For example, a lot of folks don't like the government monitoring overseas calls. But because a majority of elected representatives supported it, it was the law. Hence, my point that majoritarianism doesn't mean that rights, economic or otherwise, aren't being violated.

I didn't think that was a controversial point, but apparently, I was wrong.

But just for giggles,since you apparently took issue with the 45-55 split based on the U.S. System, I'll respond.

Obama won by only 7 points - less than my example of 45-55. Yet, until the weirdness of the Massachusetts election, he had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, which is why he managed to get it passed.

All that's irrelevant to the broader point I was making, which would be true even with a 70-30 split.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only government has a monopoly on the use of force.

In the U.S. at least, a corporation can't make me do anything.

Corporations can't restrict my freedoms, government can.

I wouldn't characterize a free market as one lacking rules, but rather one where contracts are enforced, and entered into voluntarily (freely) by all parties.

When you impose rules/regulations that prohibit willing parties from engaging in exchange, that market is less free. Such rules may be justified depending on how the exchange affects third parties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Raidne

Corporations can't restrict my freedoms, government can.

Theoretically, they can patent your genes and then sue you for infringement. Or invent something that you were already using, and then keep you from using it. Or...I don't know...release Agent Orange into your water supply.

ETA: Or, I have to add, cause a giant fucking oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, ruining your coastline, livelihood, and vacation plans.

I feel sort of restricted by those things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only if they accede to the result.

That seems to work reasonably well in western democracies - Bush's second term excepted.

There's also the question of individual rights that is completely separate from the ability of a majority to vote a government out of power. If 55% of the citizenry want a really big government, and 45% don't, the theoretical chance that the government can be voted out of power isn't much consolation to the 45%.

But with corporations, 0% of us get to vote on what they do! I never had a say in BP's safety regulations, or lack thereof. As long as the government doesn't step in to tell them off, I can only watch the clusterfuck unfold in all its oily menace.

Governments represent the people, corporations are just after their own interests.

Corporations can't restrict my freedoms, government can.

Corporations can, and do, restrict your freedoms in numerous ways. They decide which products and services are available to you - and which aren't. If the bus company decides to abolish the bus stop in my street, and another company doesn't step in, I have no choice but to walk.

I wouldn't characterize a free market as one lacking rules, but rather one where contracts are enforced, and entered into voluntarily (freely) by all parties.

For a given value of "voluntarily". Big corporations are so powerful that individuals have little choice but to accept their terms. It's not as if we're talking about equal partners here. Which is why we need the government (laws) to balance things out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Raidne

Also, on contracts, who supplies the default rules that fill out gaps in a contract?

And, I'm curious - what do small government people think about my agency, the VA? Because we are HUGE. We eat up an ENORMOUS percentage of the federal government. Do you have a problem with the existence of our huge bureaucracy that, in addition to paying out entitlements, runs an enourmous publicly funded healthcare system, or is that all okay with you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...