Jump to content

The Political Ideology of Small Government


Ser Vlad

Recommended Posts

Up to a point. Politicians can be partisan, but governments still have to provide public services and uphold the rights of all their citizens (even if they're far from perfect at achieving this). They maintain infrastructures, such as roads and bridges, which can be used by all. They maintain a police force. They protect the interests of the nation abroad through war and diplomacy. When a hurricane strikes Louisiana, or oil spills in the Gulf, governments have to act.

Companies just have to look after their customers. As long as people keep buying their products, everyone else can get screwed.

The fact that government represents all citizens does not mean all citizens get exactly what they want. You know as well as I that that is impossible. Although governments should do their best to look after all their citizens, not just their own interest groups - one of the (many) things I hold against the Bush administration.

So, no doubt governments can be partisan and corrupt. But they're founded on the principles of election and representation. All the people you mentioned can vote, and thereby change things. Your own example makes this clear. The US has gone from a rightwing "small" government to a "leftwing" government (for American standards at least) which is far more "socialist". People can *influence* who is in power, and opt for change if they don't like what they get.

When was the last time you got to vote for the CEO and board of a big company?

If you really don't see any difference between the two, I'm afraid there's nothing I can do. Nor can I take such a position very seriously. It reeks of intellectual dishonesty.

The difference is in the frame of reference. Big government liberals talk about rights collectively from the viewpoint of "the people". Small government conservatives believe the proper frame of reference is the individual. While "the people" can change the government in a democracy, the individual can't.

For small government conservatives, the goal is to maximize individual freedom. Whether the government that limits individual freedom represents "the people" isn't relevant to the amount of freedom individuals actually have.

If I believe the government is interfering unduly in my life, it's of little comfort that the majority of my neighbors are okay with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For small government conservatives, the goal is to maximize individual freedom

does this simplify the matter a bit?

i don't, for instance, tend to identify civil rights suits (title VII, 42 USC 1983, &c.) as a conservative hobbyhorse. nor do i look upon the increase in criminal defendants' rights as a focus of conservative agitation.

nor do i detect an interest from conservatives to adhere to the rights granted under international human rights law, including humanitrian law, of all things.

nor does the rightwing seem much interested in any of the individual rights derided as "entitlements."

when i survey the field of individual rights, i do detect a conservative insistance on a purported right to limited or no taxation, firearms-related rights, and a right to be free from regulation of all types regarding enterprise.

please advise if i have mistaken the rightwing's policy preferences.

if i am not mistaken, i'd like to hear some argument that distinguishes the left's pet "rights" from the right's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No they don't. This is an ideal. A hope. A pure construct people set up for philosophical discussions that doesn't exist anywhere in reality. Free Marketeers often do the same thing, it is bullshit for both parties, not just one.

Of course it exists in reality! This is far more than a pure construct, it's the essence of government. I gave plenty of examples where governments provide for all their citizens, not just their own power base. Maintaining infrastructure and a police force are two prime examples. Everybody who gets burglarized can call the cops, not just rich white men, or people who happen to have voted for the party/coalition currently in power. Welfare in European countries is another. Everybody who lives below minimum gets government support, regardless of their gender, ethnicity or political preference.

To some extent, this is true even for non-democratic governments. Even slaves in the Roman Empire had some (very limited) rights. Same for women, who were not exactly an important interest group that kept the emperors in power.

Of course, some interest groups are favoured over others - governments are anything but perfect. But to say that politicians can't entirely live up to the ideal is something else than saying the ideal is a pure construct without any impact on reality.

I did not say there was no difference between the two.

You pretty much did. To wit:

The only real difference between a government and a market is how people resist such forces.

If the only difference lies in the resistance against them, the things themselves are essentially similar. After all, resistance is not part of the government/market, it's opposed to it.

Please do not lecture on intellectual dishonesty while actively strawmanning.

I'm not, and never do. If you want to make a point, phrase it clearly.

I said the difference between the two is how one goes about resisting the establishment of totalitarianism in either system.

That's one difference between a government and a commercial company, yes. Hardly the only one, though. And, given that most of us on the board are *not* living in totalitarian regimes, hardly the most significant one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For small government conservatives, the goal is to maximize individual freedom

does this simplify the matter a bit?

i don't, for instance, tend to identify civil rights suits (title VII, 42 USC 1983, &c.) as a conservative hobbyhorse. nor do i look upon the increase in criminal defendants' rights as a focus of conservative agitation.

nor do i detect an interest from conservatives to adhere to the rights granted under international human rights law, including humanitrian law, of all things.

nor does the rightwing seem much interested in any of the individual rights derided as "entitlements."

when i survey the field of individual rights, i do detect a conservative insistance on a purported right to limited or no taxation, firearms-related rights, and a right to be free from regulation of all types regarding enterprise.

please advise if i have mistaken the rightwing's policy preferences.

if i am not mistaken, i'd like to hear some argument that distinguishes the left's pet "rights" from the right's.

One general distinction is that conservatives generally would define core rights as those that don't require anything from anyone else. The right to be left alone from interference by other people, in essence.

The left often defines rights in terms of substantive entitlements to be "free" from burdens imposed by nature. Freedom from hunger, for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

nor does the rightwing seem much interested in any of the individual rights derided as "entitlements."

Rights don't place burdens on others.

When say you have a right to healthcare, you don't mean you have a right to seek and acquire healthcare. You mean that someone can be forced to provide health care to you. That isn't a right, that's an entitlement. Or rather, a right to enslave others to work for your benefit, without their consent.

I have a right to free speech, but I'm not entitled to a microphone. I have a right to bear arms, but I'm not entitled to a gun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course it exists in reality! This is far more than a pure construct, it's the essence of government. I gave plenty of examples where governments provide for all their citizens, not just their own power base. Maintaining infrastructure and a police force are two prime examples. Everybody who gets burglarized can call the cops, not just rich white men, or people who happen to have voted for the party/coalition currently in power. Welfare in European countries is another. Everybody who lives below minimum gets government support, regardless of their gender, ethnicity or political preference.

To some extent, this is true even for non-democratic governments. Even slaves in the Roman Empire had some (very limited) rights. Same for women, who were not exactly an important interest group that kept the emperors in power.

People in democratic nations get oppressed on the basis of gender, race, religion, and sexual orientation all the time. In the thousands of years since the roman empire, your example by the way not mine, this is actually the norm. In fact even democratically elected leaders have perpetuated genocide. Being the victim of ethnic or religious cleansing, having many of your rights stripped away/being imprisoned/enslaved on the basis of religion/gender/race/ect can not be logically equated with representation.

Being 'allowed' to ride to your death camp on a publicly funded railway doesn't change that fact.

You pretty much did

No, I didn't. I argued that there was a clear difference between the two, how people in each extreme resist the forces of totalitarianism. This is not saying there is no difference between the two. So once again, please do not lecture people on intellectual integrity while you continue to strawman them.

If you want to make a point, phrase it clearly.

Given that you are equating saying there is a major difference with saying there is no difference, I once again ask you to follow your own advice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So once again, please do not lecture people on intellectual integrity while you continue to strawman them.

Strawmanning is deliberately misrepresenting your opponent's arguments. As said before, I don't stoop to that. Never have in all my years on this board.

Now, obviously, I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to say. We can argue back and forth whether this is because you haven't phrased things accurately or because I haven't read them carefully, raising the level of snark as we go. Let's not. Let's genuinely try to understand one another's position.

*Then* we can bash each other's heads in. :P

The government doesn't have to protect people's rights. It will in fact violate people's rights when a politician's customers, I.E their donors and everyone else that perpetuates a politician's existence, feels it is either good or necessary. We don't even have to get into gray areas like income taxes or gay marriage to prove this. We can use basic human rights such as habeas corpus.

So ideally governments protect the rights of everyone. That is true. Sort of the way that ideally no company in a free market will actively attempt to avoid straight competition. Reality however doesn't resemble the ideal.

We can agree that reality is less than ideal. I'm less cynical than you are about the threat governments pose to the rights and freedoms of their citizens, at least where western democracies are concerned. In the end, I think they do more to uphold these rights and freedoms than they do to obstruct them.

This optimistic attitude probably has a lot to do with coming from a very egalitarian country where lobby groups are far less influential than in the States.

However, my point is not so much about actual corruption by actual governments, but about the different natures of governments and commercial companies. A government pandering to interest groups is a government not functioning as it should. On the contrary, a company pandering to its customers (or shareholders) and leaving others to their fates is doing nothing wrong. It has no duty to society as a whole, whereas governments do.

To give a practical example, president Obama has to act on the BP oil disaster because American citizens are affected. McDonalds has no obligation to act, even though many McDonalds customers are undoubtedly affected as well.

The second crucial difference - connected to the first - is that governments do not only bear responsibility for the wellbeing of their citizens, but can also be held accountable by them. They can be voted out of power, as regularly happens.

On the contrary, when Walmart does something I don't agree with, all I can do is stop shopping there. I get no say in Walmart policy, can't vote the CEO out of power, etc. Plus that my choice to stop shopping there limits my own options as a consumer; "voting with my feet" comes at a personal price.

Perhaps this is what you refer to when talking about different strategies of resistance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strawmanning is deliberately misrepresenting your opponent's arguments. As said before, I don't stoop to that. Never have in all my years on this board.

Wrong. To Writ:

If you really don't see any difference between the two, I'm afraid there's nothing I can do. Nor can I take such a position very seriously. It reeks of intellectual dishonesty.

The fact that you strawman might run counter to the image you wish to present, but the fact is you have 'stooped' to strawmaning multiple times in this conversation. No where did I say there was no difference between a government and a company.

However, my point is not so much about actual corruption by actual governments, but about the different natures of governments and commercial companies. A government pandering to interest groups is a government not functioning as it should.

This is irrelevant. This isn't a a debate over the ideal of government. This isn't a debate about what governments should be. I am talking about how governments are and how they have been. Governments do not strictly protect people's rights and represent everyone in their territory. We have yet to truly realize that ideal in our nation, although I do concede we may be close in the grand scheme of things.

The world as a whole is not even close to such realizations. Claiming the ideal of government often offered in philosophical debates is reflected in reality is flatly fallacious. In the real world a politician sees to the interests of those that perpetuate their existence and generally ignores the rest, assuming they are not actively working against them, which is often the case.

In that way a company and a politician are the same. As a government is mostly a collection of politicians and figures appointed by them, the same applies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that you strawman might run counter to the image you wish to present, but the fact is you have 'stooped' to strawmaning multiple times in this conversation. No where did I say there was no difference between a government and a company.

I think you did, as I explained, by claiming that the only difference between governments and markets is the ways people resist their oppression. That's saying they're not different at all, they just generate different responses.

Apparently, that's not what you wanted to say, but that's how I interpreted it. No deliberate misrepresentation involved.

But really, I'm not going to be drawn further in this "yes, you did, no you didn't" debate, which can only go in circles. If you feel I've been debating dishonestly, I'm sorry to hear that. Obviously, I'm not going to convince you otherwise. So be it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

commodore, FLOW--

the assertion that certain rights don't impose on others is often made, but nearly never substantiated.

consider max's point about a right to jury trial and to an attorney in certain matters; these are fairly obvious rights in the US, and not controversial, and yet they are massive impositions on the public in terms of expense in criminal matters.

and the point about preferring rights that do not impose on others, while a tidy principle, does not explain actual conservative praxis, with the exception of being aesthetically disinclined toward so-called "entitlements." it does not, i.e., explain the preference for a right to be free from taxation or regulation, nor does it explain the distaste for civil rights and human rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you did, as I explained, by claiming that the only difference between governments and markets is the ways people resist their oppression. That's saying they're not different at all, they just generate different responses.

This might be an argument, if the electoral process was external to government. As this is not the case, it is merely an attempt to rationalize the multiple use of the tactic known as strawmanning. Additionally, reguardless of your interpretation of the logic behind my argument, it still was my position that there was a difference between a government any a company. So even if the above point was accurate, it would still be a text book example of the strawman. As is the quoted rationalization in point of fact.

That said, this is nothing more then a side argument. So long as you no longer attempt to question the intellectual integrity of others while actively strawmanning them there is no reason we can not continue the core debate: The claim that the ideal of government is reflected in reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No larger than is necessary to protect individual rights.

Every act of the state is fundamentally a use of force, and the only acceptable use of force is for the protection of individual rights.

Every act of a human being, period, is an act of force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every act of a human being, period, is an act of force.

Even tea? :stunned:

Blah, the problem with libertarians is that the world they imagine, if its even conceptually possible, is nothing more than some kind of if-we-lived-on-desert-island thought experiment. Might be a fun fantasy, but the practical actions that have some correspondence to reality that can be taken are usually the opposite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

consider max's point about a right to jury trial and to an attorney in certain matters; these are fairly obvious rights in the US, and not controversial, and yet they are massive impositions on the public in terms of expense in criminal matters.

Those rights are perfectly consistent with small government conservatism given that you don't get those rights unless the "the people" are trying to deprive that individual of life, liberty' or property.

and the point about preferring rights that do not impose on others, while a tidy principle, does not explain actual conservative praxis,

Sorry, but I'm not following the point you're trying to make here. We're discussing the general concept of small government conservatism. That does not mean that every belief of every person who might be described as conservative is going to be perfectly in line with that general concept. I'm sure the same caveat applies equally when describing liberal or progressive beliefs, and the professed adherents of those beliefs.

it does not, i.e., explain the preference for a right to be free from taxation or regulation, nor does it explain the distaste for civil rights and human rights.

As stated, those are strawmen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look - the reality is that small government is intellectually bankrupt. It is quite frankly stupid in its procrustean sameness. But then again, gov't will fix everything is stupid too. What is needed is quite frankly a critical analysis of a situation - examine the given process and find ways to improve it. And if it means less regulation grand. If it means more Fantastic.

But somehow we are stuck arguing about these pie in the sky grand ideals. Fuck them. Could we instead focus on figuring out what works. Or are we too far beyond that to ever get back there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even tea? :stunned:

I'm pretty sure it is possible to dig out information about the working conditions under which tea is and has been produced or about fancy trading companies like the East India Company or the Dutch East India Company and their links to colonialism.

/wet blanket

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...