Good government vs Big government

[manifold]

How do you tell the difference?

Is big government like pornography, you can't define it but you know it when you see it?

Or is it more like beauty... in the eye of the beholder? Just like one man's nasty skank is another man's beauty queen, one man's authoritarian overreach is another man's just policy.

How do you decide whether a particular law or policy is big government or good government?

 

[manifold]

Wait a second...

Are you telling me that with all the properly educated and imaginatively inventive minds we have here at USMB, nobody is going to step up to the plate and attempt to articulate clearly and without question, how to distinguish big government from good government?

I'd really like to know.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Well I was going to say that the idea of "big government" versus "good government" isn't really the issue, because "good government" doesn't exist, but that seemed to be outside the scope of your thread. Everything the government does is based on violence and coercion to begin with so it's never good, but the bigger it is the more it does so the more it engages in violence and coercion.

 

[manifold]

Well I was going to say that the idea of "big government" versus "good government" isn't really the issue, because "good government" doesn't exist, but that seemed to be outside the scope of your thread. Everything the government does is based on violence and coercion to begin with so it's never good, but the bigger it is the more it does so the more it engages in violence and coercion.

That sounds like something an anarchist would say, so I feel compelled to ask, are you an anarchist?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Well I was going to say that the idea of "big government" versus "good government" isn't really the issue, because "good government" doesn't exist, but that seemed to be outside the scope of your thread. Everything the government does is based on violence and coercion to begin with so it's never good, but the bigger it is the more it does so the more it engages in violence and coercion.

That sounds like something an anarchist would say, so I feel compelled to ask, are you an anarchist?

Yes.

Anarcho-capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[manifold]

Well I was going to say that the idea of "big government" versus "good government" isn't really the issue, because "good government" doesn't exist, but that seemed to be outside the scope of your thread. Everything the government does is based on violence and coercion to begin with so it's never good, but the bigger it is the more it does so the more it engages in violence and coercion.

That sounds like something an anarchist would say, so I feel compelled to ask, are you an anarchist?

Yes.

Anarcho-capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The we agree, that is outside the scope of this thread. While I find the idea of (controlled) anarchy intellectually seductive, I just don't believe it can work in the real world. Point me to a thread on that topic and I'd be happy to discuss why.

 

[AquaAthena]

Well I was going to say that the idea of "big government" versus "good government" isn't really the issue, because "good government" doesn't exist, but that seemed to be outside the scope of your thread. Everything the government does is based on violence and coercion to begin with so it's never good, but the bigger it is the more it does so the more it engages in violence and coercion.

As Ronald Reagan so wisely said: Government isn't the answer; government is the problem."

Our founding father's wisdom of personal responsibility and the importance of living within means is what is needed for America to prosper. The national debt is skyrocketing as we are "spending like there's no tomorrow.

"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples' money." - Margaret Thatcher

 

[boedicca]

I'll note that the same people who think Big Government is good usually think Big Business is bad.

They should check their premise. The power accretion that makes many large business' toxic cultures are just supersized when accompanied by armies, police forces, and the ability to make up regulations.

 

[manifold]

Well I was going to say that the idea of "big government" versus "good government" isn't really the issue, because "good government" doesn't exist, but that seemed to be outside the scope of your thread. Everything the government does is based on violence and coercion to begin with so it's never good, but the bigger it is the more it does so the more it engages in violence and coercion.

As Ronald Reagan so wisely said: Government isn't the answer; government is the problem."

Our founding father's wisdom of personal responsibility and the importance of living within means is what is needed for America to prosper. The national debt is skyrocketing as we are "spending like there's no tomorrow.

"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples' money." - Margaret Thatcher

No offense, but how exactly does that help one to distinguish good government from big government?

 

[oldfart]

Wait a second...

Are you telling me that with all the properly educated and imaginatively inventive minds we have here at USMB, nobody is going to step up to the plate and attempt to articulate clearly and without question, how to distinguish big government from good government?

I'd really like to know.

I understand what you are getting at, but as stated you have a tar baby thread. Folks on the right will wax apoplectic about the evils of big government and those on the left will get defensive.

For myself, self-appointed spokesperson for the Left Opposition and Spartacist League, charter member of the Joseph Schumpeter school of humility, dedicated dilettante, and occasional economist with way too much time on my hands when not saving the world; this is a no brainer.

Large agglomerations of power, be it economic, social, religious, or political are inimical to economic growth and equality, destructive to liberty, self-perpetuating and mutually reinforcing evils and especially to be resisted when they tend to be passed to new generations.

Command mechanisms are only effective if very narrow circumstances; market mechanisms (not finance, or crony capitalism, monopoly and monopsonistic behavior) are superior. Regulation is necessary to address externalities and allow markets to work properly. The absence of effective regulation ("regulatory capture") is a a necessary condition for the formation of monopoly power.

Economic institutions are social constructs just like political and religious institutions, family and social relationships, and legal systems. When ossified they become non-functional and destructive to their original purposes. They either evolve or die. Anyone claiming they are immortal and unchanging is either a crook, delusional, or incredibly naive.

Cant and ideology of all kinds are symptoms of laziness and weak minds. The solution to bad public thinking is robust discourse. If you won't try to learn how to persuade, stay out of the debate. You are only engaging in intellectual masturbation. When large numbers of people persist in saying the same thing over and over without responding to others, it's a circle jerk.

To answer your question directly, good government is effective government responsive to the needs and will of the governed. It can be any size, is not necessarily scalable, but does have a tendency to become unworkable and inefficient with large size. The challenge in any setting, government, business, or social, is to get organizations to behave as if they were small organizations responsible to people they deal with on a daily basis.

Increasing size makes waste and corruption easier. There is a way to combat this. It involves realizing the dynamic that the concentration of power is self-perpetuating and liberty and opportunity require constant efforts to offset this tendency. This is not a static game; do nothing and we will have a feudal society in 25 years, where everyone knows their caste.

Finally, reason is not a shield to cower behind for protection; it is a sword to assault the high ground. Life has a bias for action. Try to protect what you have and you lose it. Try to advance freedom, opportunity, and justice for everyone and at least you get to live as a happy warrior.

 

[manifold]

I understand what you are getting at, but as stated you have a tar baby thread. Folks on the right will wax apoplectic about the evils of big government and those on the left will get defensive.

For myself, self-appointed spokesperson for the Left Opposition and Spartacist League, charter member of the Joseph Schumpeter school of humility, dedicated dilettante, and occasional economist with way too much time on my hands when not saving the world; this is a no brainer.

Large agglomerations of power, be it economic, social, religious, or political are inimical to economic growth and equality, destructive to liberty, self-perpetuating and mutually reinforcing evils and especially to be resisted when they tend to be passed to new generations.

Command mechanisms are only effective if very narrow circumstances; market mechanisms (not finance, or crony capitalism, monopoly and monopsonistic behavior) are superior. Regulation is necessary to address externalities and allow markets to work properly. The absence of effective regulation ("regulatory capture") is a a necessary condition for the formation of monopoly power.

Economic institutions are social constructs just like political and religious institutions, family and social relationships, and legal systems. When ossified they become non-functional and destructive to their original purposes. They either evolve or die. Anyone claiming they are immortal and unchanging is either a crook, delusional, or incredibly naive.

Cant and ideology of all kinds are symptoms of laziness and weak minds. The solution to bad public thinking is robust discourse. If you won't try to learn how to persuade, stay out of the debate. You are only engaging in intellectual masturbation. When large numbers of people persist in saying the same thing over and over without responding to others, it's a circle jerk.

To answer your question directly, good government is effective government responsive to the needs and will of the governed. It can be any size, is not necessarily scalable, but does have a tendency to become unworkable and inefficient with large size. The challenge in any setting, government, business, or social, is to get organizations to behave as if they were small organizations responsible to people they deal with on a daily basis.

Increasing size makes waste and corruption easier. There is a way to combat this. It involves realizing the dynamic that the concentration of power is self-perpetuating and liberty and opportunity require constant efforts to offset this tendency. This is not a static game; do nothing and we will have a feudal society in 25 years, where everyone knows their caste.

Finally, reason is not a shield to cower behind for protection; it is a sword to assault the high ground. Life has a bias for action. Try to protect what you have and you lose it. Try to advance freedom, opportunity, and justice for everyone and at least you get to live as a happy warrior.

So is that more like pornography or beauty?

 

[gnarlylove]

Well I was going to say that the idea of "big government" versus "good government" isn't really the issue, because "good government" doesn't exist, but that seemed to be outside the scope of your thread. Everything the government does is based on violence and coercion to begin with so it's never good, but the bigger it is the more it does so the more it engages in violence and coercion.

From the get-go I want to state I respect you and hope we can engage in clean debate. This is a fundamental question about government that deserves serious consideration. Ultimately, I think you are right about there is no good government. Most people attracted to power are mediocre and our institutions have been slanted towards personal gain over the good of all.

But the fact is we have government, so we need to consider what's good and what's not. You assert all government activity is violent. I sharply disagree but I suspect it's because your definition of government is coercion. So that' won't do for our purposes of discussion since by definition I have no chance of asserting otherwise. I'm sure you are attached to that term and tautology so I will use a modified term: really existing government.

So given really existing government (REG) we can take a look and see if there is anything REG does that is not violent. Take any number of welfare programs. I have received benefits on occasion and I can assure you there was no violence, there was no coercion in the process. I was simply without adequate food and after much bickering decided to see how good government can be if at all. It turns out I was able to get the nutritious food my body needed and this quickly became a celebratory day when my card would be loaded. It meant I had access to sustenance that was denied to me through prices and the market.

To argue this is coercive is to simply speak in an esoteric language that does not vibe with reality in this case. I can offer more specific examples but suffice to say, REG does good as well as bad. but I most curious by your anarcho-capitalist stance. I find this an oxy-moron at best and an outright contradiction at worst. I want to reiterate I respect you and you are clearly intelligent so I have chosen to engage your views on a critical level as I hope you enjoy. I mean no harm and it's sad that most participants I've engaged on USMB feel deeply threatened and hurl insults at me for merely challenging their assertions.

Anyway, allow me to explain. You probably imagine free enterprise is the fuel for freedom. But free enterprise cannot exist without private property, right? Right. So how do we come to hold private property? Through drawing up a document that claims you own such and such. This document is then embedded in a set of legal statutes governing "property rights." But in order to defend property rights once you own something there must be those who defend that property from altercations and invasions.

Well, property then is by no means self-evident and is entirely arbitrary from its deed to its legalisms. For without property, there is no need for property rights and no need for laws that arbitrarily support property. Nor is there a need for an army of defense to serve those with property while limiting those who do not have property from accessing life sustaining land or water. Thus, some form of government must exist in order to protect property rights. Inherent, according to John Locke, Hobbes and others whom I've read say that the state of nature does not work for property. That governments must be instituted and have been to protect property (but the only way property had nascence was through state protection from outsiders by arbitrary legal documents.

Therefore capitalism is state dependent and if we take a look at subsidies of corporations and tax incentives, we can see that fact is really beneficial. State re-distribution of taxes is alive and well and much of it is re-distributed upwards to private hand though various means. We can discuss this more if you like but suffice to say it doesn't take much thinking to realize anarcho-capitalism is blatantly unaligned with anarchism. Anarchism is absence of state and capitalism is dependent upon the state for private property to be protected.

If you want to get hypothetical and say capitalism can exist without government then who protects the property? The private enterprise-ers. But how would they protect property? The only way possible: the same way the government does: through intimidation, coercion and violence. Thus, authority is sneaked through the back door while still calling it private. Well, technically all authority is is private people cooperating and there would be cooperation among the few corporations that own a majority of the earth's supposed "private property." So it seems anarcho-capitalism is a contradiction in terms.

If you'd like further discussion listen to this podcast at around 30 minutes in: CrimethInc. Ex-Workers? Collective : Podcast Episode #18

 

[gnarlylove]

Well I was going to say that the idea of "big government" versus "good government" isn't really the issue, because "good government" doesn't exist, but that seemed to be outside the scope of your thread. Everything the government does is based on violence and coercion to begin with so it's never good, but the bigger it is the more it does so the more it engages in violence and coercion.

As Ronald Reagan so wisely said: Government isn't the answer; government is the problem."

Our founding father's wisdom of personal responsibility and the importance of living within means is what is needed for America to prosper. The national debt is skyrocketing as we are "spending like there's no tomorrow.

"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples' money." - Margaret Thatcher

If you take a look at America or the UK you'll notice that they operate according to the state socialist models of the welfare state. Moreover, Reagan undertook the greatest state spending and massive borrowing thus expanding the government massively. In fact, both America and UK are in the top 20 debtor nations. So Thatcher's rhetoric of running out of the people's money is something they need to confront instead of dismiss as some other nation's problem.

My point is the rhetoric and sophism of our politicians is greater than we can imagine. Therefore it is necessary to actually examine the conditions and policies they undertook to understand if what they are saying is actually happening. To take them at their word would then be to contradict their actions.

 

[manifold]

It's rare to see so much time and effort put into not answering a question.

I appreciate the thoughtfully crafted replies, but I'm still no closer to having any kind of reliable blueprint to help me distinguish good government from big government.

Why is this so hard I wonder?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Well I was going to say that the idea of "big government" versus "good government" isn't really the issue, because "good government" doesn't exist, but that seemed to be outside the scope of your thread. Everything the government does is based on violence and coercion to begin with so it's never good, but the bigger it is the more it does so the more it engages in violence and coercion.

From the get-go I want to state I respect you and hope we can engage in clean debate. This is a fundamental question about government that deserves serious consideration. Ultimately, I think you are right about there is no good government. Most people attracted to power are mediocre and our institutions have been slanted towards personal gain over the good of all.

But the fact is we have government, so we need to consider what's good and what's not. You assert all government activity is violent. I sharply disagree but I suspect it's because your definition of government is coercion. So that' won't do for our purposes of discussion since by definition I have no chance of asserting otherwise. I'm sure you are attached to that term and tautology so I will use a modified term: really existing government.

So given really existing government (REG) we can take a look and see if there is anything REG does that is not violent. Take any number of welfare programs. I have received benefits on occasion and I can assure you there was no violence, there was no coercion in the process. I was simply without adequate food and after much bickering decided to see how good government can be if at all. It turns out I was able to get the nutritious food my body needed and this quickly became a celebratory day when my card would be loaded. It meant I had access to sustenance that was denied to me through prices and the market.

To argue this is coercive is to simply speak in an esoteric language that does not vibe with reality in this case. I can offer more specific examples but suffice to say, REG does good as well as bad. but I most curious by your anarcho-capitalist stance. I find this an oxy-moron at best and an outright contradiction at worst. I want to reiterate I respect you and you are clearly intelligent so I have chosen to engage your views on a critical level as I hope you enjoy. I mean no harm and it's sad that most participants I've engaged on USMB feel deeply threatened and hurl insults at me for merely challenging their assertions.

Anyway, allow me to explain. You probably imagine free enterprise is the fuel for freedom. But free enterprise cannot exist without private property, right? Right. So how do we come to hold private property? Through drawing up a document that claims you own such and such. This document is then embedded in a set of legal statutes governing "property rights." But in order to defend property rights once you own something there must be those who defend that property from altercations and invasions.

Well, property then is by no means self-evident and is entirely arbitrary from its deed to its legalisms. For without property, there is no need for property rights and no need for laws that arbitrarily support property. Nor is there a need for an army of defense to serve those with property while limiting those who do not have property from accessing life sustaining land or water. Thus, some form of government must exist in order to protect property rights. Inherent, according to John Locke, Hobbes and others whom I've read say that the state of nature does not work for property. That governments must be instituted and have been to protect property (but the only way property had nascence was through state protection from outsiders by arbitrary legal documents.

Therefore capitalism is state dependent and if we take a look at subsidies of corporations and tax incentives, we can see that fact is really beneficial. State re-distribution of taxes is alive and well and much of it is re-distributed upwards to private hand though various means. We can discuss this more if you like but suffice to say it doesn't take much thinking to realize anarcho-capitalism is blatantly unaligned with anarchism. Anarchism is absence of state and capitalism is dependent upon the state for private property to be protected.

If you want to get hypothetical and say capitalism can exist without government then who protects the property? The private enterprise-ers. But how would they protect property? The only way possible: the same way the government does: through intimidation, coercion and violence. Thus, authority is sneaked through the back door while still calling it private. Well, technically all authority is is private people cooperating and there would be cooperation among the few corporations that own a majority of the earth's supposed "private property." So it seems anarcho-capitalism is a contradiction in terms.

If you'd like further discussion listen to this podcast at around 30 minutes in: CrimethInc. Ex-Workers? Collective : Podcast Episode #18

Well, for starters, I'm going to say that I'm not going to respond here to your thoughts on anarcho-capitalism. Since you seem to be interested in discussing the subject, and Manifold made clear that he was as well, I think I'll open up a separate thread where we can deal with that topic, or anarchism more broadly, rather than hijack this thread.

I'll respond to the bold portion of your post now. You say that there was no violence or coercion involved in you receiving benefits from the government, as they obviously did not commit aggression against you in giving you these benefits. However, you're only looking at one end of the equation: What about the people that the government took the money from to provide you with those benefits? Clearly aggression was committed against them as they had their rightful property forcefully taken from them. Now let me be clear that I am not castigating you for accepting benefits or claiming that you personally engaged in violence in receiving them, but that is how welfare benefits are every bit as violent and coercive as any other government act. They rest on the ability of the government to take from one group of people to give to another.

 

[gnarlylove]

Manifold, I understand you have rigid standards for what's discuss-able. But I did not even attempt to answer your question so it's odd to hear you write as if I tried but didn't pass. Furthermore I do not treat threads as if I am only allowed to discuss within a narrow framework. This is not an undergraduate course, it's the internet. This framework obviously stifles otherwise fruitful conversation.

I respect your method but sharply disagree. Obviously I'm not promoting a product or speaking non-sense. My post came organically from the flow of the thread and I addressed pertinent questions that are entangled with the OP. Nothing exists in isolation and though it can be helpful to treat topics in isolation this method is beneficial for those who know little about the topic and so are rigidly guided through it. Perhaps I'm way off base here.

Either way, your question whether government is one thing to all people (pornography) or is many things to many people (beauty/beholder) is a meaningless question. Government works for some in some ways and doesn't work for others (or even the same people) in other ways. These can be plotted on a continuous spectrum and no one person's way the government treats them is the same way all people are treated.

If you want to ask when is government good we must again understand this in terms of plurality. There are a great many things the government can do that is good to some people and precisely for that reason be bad for others. So what group are you trying to isolate and hear since I take it that is your method? I think it's a good question but is not to be determined in any absolute or universal sense so long as government favors certain groups thereby disfavoring others (the planet is not infinite and when someone claims x and the government favors their claim, the total available has now reduced to a fraction of what was available before and the rest of the population is left with less). Again, nothing happens in isolation in our finite world and thus favoring some forgoes the claim of others, putting them in disfavor.

 

[pillars]

Good government maximizes the ability of the majority of community members to access opportunities and live safe/productive lives. Government is too big when it gets in the way of that.

 

[pillars]

The majority of us want to live in a well-ordered community with professional law enforcement officers, good schools, well-paved roads, and infrastructure that supports business development and opportunity. Government is the framework used by community members to create those conditions, because as American settlers found in the American west, they don't create themselves without an organizational structure. Anarchy isn't very pretty.

We don't want to live in a society, however, where government regularly snoops in people's bedrooms, where law enforcement is out of control and over the top, and where insignificant and nonsensical activities are scrutinized and controlled. That's big government.

 

[westwall]

It's rare to see so much time and effort put into not answering a question.

I appreciate the thoughtfully crafted replies, but I'm still no closer to having any kind of reliable blueprint to help me distinguish good government from big government.

Why is this so hard I wonder?

Good government is that which interferes with it's citizenry the least. There needs to be just enough government to ensure that BIG business can't take advantage of the little guy.
There needs to be just enough government to take care of the needs of the country's infrastructure and defense.

Big government, like big business, like big oil, like big pharma is bad. Anytime a entity gets too large it changes from a beneficial organization, to one which cares more about itself than those it was created to serve.

 

[boedicca]

The majority of us want to live in a well-ordered community with professional law enforcement officers, good schools, well-paved roads, and infrastructure that supports business development and opportunity. Government is the framework used by community members to create those conditions, because as American settlers found in the American west, they don't create themselves without an organizational structure. Anarchy isn't very pretty.

We don't want to live in a society, however, where government regularly snoops in people's bedrooms, where law enforcement is out of control and over the top, and where insignificant and nonsensical activities are scrutinized and controlled. That's big government.

Government is not the only alternative to Anarchy. The main social structure which enabled American settlers to found the American west was "Civil Society" - a set of norms shared by those settlers and enforced in voluntary social interactions.