Why Libertarians Shouldn't Hate Government

[Lemur]

Interesting article (http://reason.com/archives/2010/01/13/five-reasons-why-libertarians/print), including a study showing that bad government inevitably leads to more government.


Today, only 23 percent of Americans trust government to do the right thing. At first blush, this would seem to be an encouraging statistic for those opposed to “big government.” After all, the less citizens trust government, the less willing they should be to give it big new responsibilities, right?

Wrong.

An important recent academic study called “Regulation and Distrust” shows that, paradoxically, the worse government performs, the more citizens demand greater government intervention. The authors’ explanation for this curious finding is that in societies where people distrust large institutions—whether government or big business—the demand for more regulation and for more government is higher, even when government is incompetent or downright corrupt. [...]

According to many libertarians, politicians are corrupt, bureaucrats are lazy, and public unions are a collection of thugs. The whole enterprise of government is a moral cesspool filled with Randian villains scheming to drain every bit of life, cash, and liberty from the noble John Galts of the free market.

This view is so at odds with the daily experience of millions of Americans that libertarians are easily dismissed by the average citizen. The distorted worldview in which government performs no useful functions—ever—is silly.

Incessant government-bashing may make you feel good, but alienates most everybody who knows and loves a police officer, firefighter, teacher, social worker, anyone who has ever collected an unemployment check, and anyone who saw NASA put a man on the moon.

In the short term, a philosophy of “government never works” might sell to the base but it’s not an effective strategy for building a broad-based electoral coalition or actually governing. Voters won’t trust people who hate government with the keys to City Hall.

The whole thing is worth a read.

[Skullheadhq]

So, if you hate the government, teachers hate you?

[rory_20_uk]

I'm currently employed by the Government, but that doesn't mean I don't think the system requires overhaul - self interest doesn't blind me to reality.

~:smoking:

[Crazed Rabbit]

Well rory, you are a professional who could be employed outside the government.

Point #1 is the most frustrating.

CR

[jabarto]

Libertarians are wrong about something? Why I never!

Snarkiness aside, I can't help but roll my eyes when someone says the term "small government". "Small government", in the overwhelming majoruty of cases, means cutting social programs designed to help the underprivileged, because god forbid I should be forced to help those shifty blacks poors.

[Furunculus]

hah, i love the idea of smaller government (than we have got in the UK already), because i consider it frankly immoral that the government should wish to waste north of 45% of GDP on its business.

so yes, i want less government, and i'll continue to whine about until the impossible happens and government spending wastes no more than 1/3 of annual GDP.

[Strike For The South]

Libertarians are wrong about something? Why I never!

Snarkiness aside, I can't help but roll my eyes when someone says the term "small government". "Small government", in the overwhelming majoruty of cases, means cutting social programs designed to help the underprivileged, because god forbid I should be forced to help those shifty blacks poors.

Because there is clearly a correlation with wanting to cut uneeded funding and a desire to bring retroactive Jim Crow back.

I swear these n00bs couldn't spell cat if you spotted them the c and the a.

[Major Robert Dump]

Libertarians are wrong about something? Why I never!

Snarkiness aside, I can't help but roll my eyes when someone says the term "small government". "Small government", in the overwhelming majoruty of cases, means cutting social programs designed to help the underprivileged, because god forbid I should be forced to help those shifty blacks poors.

You equate someone's desire for less intrusive government as wanting to see poor people, i.e. blacks, suffer. This is comical. You do realize that by raw numbers there are more white people below the poverty line than blacks, right?

So if you are going to accuse me of hating someone: get it right! I hate poor people, and wish to see them suffer. It has nothing to do with race. I happen to LOVE rich black people.

In all seriousness, though, if the first programs to suffer are social assistance programs then in most cases I happen to disagreee with those cuts as the cuts can usually come from somewhere else. It nonetheless still makes me want less government intrusion, and it is not my fault if a politician makes those cuts in the wrong place, and it in no way makes me a racist.

Just out of curiosity, are you for or against businesses who get bailout money having to limit bonuses and adhere to more stringent regulation? I have a feeling you are, as am I. But I am also for having people who receive government assistance in the form of money and food stamps having to take drug tests and be subject to frequent visits by social workers to make sure they are not drunks ..... I have a feeling you are not.

[jabarto]

Relax guys. I'm not calling you out personally, but you're pretty naive if you think race isn't a factor in a lot of people's judgment on this issue.


So if you are going to accuse me of hating someone: get it right! I hate poor people, and wish to see them suffer. It has nothing to do with race. I happen to LOVE rich black people.

You're kidding, but this attitude is very prevalent throughout American history; the poor have always been treated with the utmost contempt in this society. We see them as slackers because we buy into the quaint notion that hard work alone is enough to bring success. It's not.


But I am also for having people who receive government assistance in the form of money and food stamps having to take drug tests and be subject to frequent visits by social workers to make sure they are not drunks ..... I have a feeling you are not.

You are correct. Such requirements will just make it even harder to break out of poverty, as substance abuse is most prevalent among the lower class.

[Furunculus]

no, i don't accept that a desire for small government = closet racist

[Strike For The South]

Relax guys. I'm not calling you out personally, but you're pretty naive if you think race isn't a factor in a lot of people's judgment on this issue.
.

Oh yes the evil white man holding the poor single black mother down. Meanwhile back in reality...


The Census Bureau's most recent annual poverty report found that urban black mothers constitute less than one out of six of all poor households. Rural white families account for more--one out of five. White surburban families accountfor even more--one out of four.
https://www.msu.edu/user/skourtes/myths.html

[Major Robert Dump]

Relax guys. I'm not calling you out personally, but you're pretty naive if you think race isn't a factor in a lot of people's judgment on this issue.



You're kidding, but this attitude is very prevalent throughout American history; the poor have always been treated with the utmost contempt in this society. We see them as slackers because we buy into the quaint notion that hard work alone is enough to bring success. It's not.



You are correct. Such requirements will just make it even harder to break out of poverty, as substance abuse is most prevalent among the lower class.

Then that is where we disagree. I have all the empathy in the world for poor people, as I used to be one and I am very well aware that hard work has less to do with success than family wealth in a lot of cases.

However, someone's drug problem and other bad habits should preclude any form of social assistance without also including REHAB efforts. Throwing money at people who dig themselves into a hole with substance abuse does nothing to help them and just makes things worse. They need a wake-up call, and cutting off the tit can do it. There are plenty of successful alcoholics and drug users, and the reason a poor addict is poor is quite often because he/she is an addict. Inner city and rural america is still reeling from the no-questions-asked welfare tit from the 70s and 80s where the more kids you popped out the more money you got, and which penalized your benefits for having an able-bodied adult male in the home.

[CountArach]

no, i don't accept that a desire for small government = closet racist
Actually if I read jabarto correctly he seems to be saying that for some people it is one fact amongst others, and this isn't too hard to imagine. Think of the lower-middle class white man trying to send his kids to college seeing a black child sent on a scholarship that his children don't have access to. It isn't hard to imagine how you can see this leading to racism and simultaneously to a desire to do away with these scholarship grants, and thus smaller government.

Oh yes the evil white man holding the poor single black mother down. Meanwhile back in reality...

https://www.msu.edu/user/skourtes/myths.html
The data you quoted is in raw figures, which is not at all the correct data set to use when you have a disparity in numbers (There are far more whites than blacks, thus biasing the data). Further you can't compare "White families" with "Black single mothers" because you also have a disparity in income potential as there is only one working adult compared to two. If you look at the 2007 census data (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2010/tables/10s0695.pdf) it shows that 24.5% of blacks are below the poverty line, compared to 10.5% of whites and 12.5% overall.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Actually if I read jabarto correctly he seems to be saying that for some people it is one fact amongst others, and this isn't too hard to imagine.

You could pick anything and say that for some people it is one factor amongst others. So, instead of the wording itself being significant, it is the fact that he picked that factor. He implied that it was a very significant factor.

In reality, it has more to do with selfishness or the idea that the poor are undeserving. Or that the government can't afford it, or any number of reasons. That's for the arguments against welfare etc specifically, many people are against big government in many areas, such as liberals who are against the defense budget.

[Kralizec]

How big is the libertarian movement in the USA, anyway? I always had the impression that they were a tiny, almost irrelevant faction in the Republican party.


The data you quoted is in raw figures, which is not at all the correct data set to use when you have a disparity in numbers (There are far more whites than blacks, thus biasing the data). Further you can't compare "White families" with "Black single mothers" because you also have a disparity in income potential as there is only one working adult compared to two. If you look at the 2007 census data it shows that 24.5% of blacks are below the poverty line, compared to 10.5% of whites and 12.5% overall.

That's only relevant if your aim is to specifically ensure that the % of poor people is equal in each ethnicity, rather than combat poverty regardless of color :juggle2:

[Louis VI the Fat]

2. To shrink government, you need to love government. Most liberals believe deeply in government. As a result, they sit on school boards, city councils, and regional planning boards. They become expert at navigating through the bureaucracy and know which bureaucratic levers to pull to make their policy vision reality.

5. Nobody will care what you know until they know you care. Many voters today may indeed want smaller government, but what they want most of all is competent government. In addition to pointing out the flaws of government, free-marketers also need to communicate a genuine interest in the effective performance of the important duties of government.






My vote goes to numbers two and five. :2thumbsup:

[CountArach]

That's only relevant if your aim is to specifically ensure that the % of poor people is equal in each ethnicity, rather than combat poverty regardless of color :juggle2:
Yes, but I was disputing the link that SFTS posted. Poverty needs to be fought amongst all human beings.

[jabarto]

Actually if I read jabarto correctly he seems to be saying that for some people it is one fact amongst others, and this isn't too hard to imagine. Think of the lower-middle class white man trying to send his kids to college seeing a black child sent on a scholarship that his children don't have access to. It isn't hard to imagine how you can see this leading to racism and simultaneously to a desire to do away with these scholarship grants, and thus smaller government.

Also, I think there's a slight misunderstanding here. I say that small government can - and, I would go so far to say, sometimes does - have racial implications because, as I noted above, it usually entails curtailing spending on programs that would help the lower classes (and guess which class typically has the most minorities?). If a government can simultaneously be small and support strong social safety nets, well, I guess I wouldn't have a problem with it. But I'm left to wonder; what is meant by "small government" if not one that doesn't provide those services?

[Beskar]

If a government can simultaneously be small and support strong social safety nets, well, I guess I wouldn't have a problem with it. But I'm left to wonder; what is meant by "small government" if not one that doesn't provide those services?

Same question as "what does it mean by 'big government'".

In short "big government" is a term just thrown about by people who think they know what they are talking about and look clever by doing it. They blame all their problems on this nefarious and imaginary 'big government' without a clue to what they are thinking they are implying.

So what is big government?

To make it even easier, I will look to wikipedia since I am lazy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_government

Don't worry, you don't have to read it, I will put the points here.


generally used by political conservatives, laissez-faire advocates or libertarians to describe a government which they consider to be excessively large, corrupt and inefficient, or inappropriately involved in certain areas of public policy.

Let's break this down:
1) Excessively large
2) Corrupt
3) Inefficient
4) Inappropriately involved in certain areas of public policy.


1) Well, the term is "big government" and the description is "excessively large", it sounds like a reasonable definition. Persumingly this just means that Civil Servant numbers should be cut as 3-4 people are doing the job of 1. But wouldn't that just mean it is the same as point 3? I don't think this would be an adequate definition.

2) Corrupt - that would be "Corrupt Government" wouldn't it? I am just going to throw this definition away.

3) Pretty much same as number 1, It would just be an "Inefficent Government" as that would be a label people can agree with. Government employment shouldn't really be a factor in the term "big" as would it still be classed as big government if it was infact very efficient?

4) Inappropriately involved in certain areas of public policy is a possible contender for "Big Government". However, the problem lies in "what is inappropriate involvement" ? For now, we will stick with this definition.

Conclusion: Throw away definitions 1, 2 and 3. Keep 4.

The reason for this is because points 1 and 3 is pretty much the same thing. It hold fundamental flaws in the definition, as employment size shouldn't be a factor in the terms of the government in this context. Does this mean that the United States is "massively large big government" than lets say, "large government" in the United Kingdom, because it requires far more employees to run than United Kingdom? It is just best to extract this point from the definition and classify it under whether or not they are efficient.

Point 2 is based on corruption. Corruption has nothing to do with its size, as it could still be "very small" by other definitions and still be corrupt. Thus, it is best to cast away this definition.

This leaves point 4, which is probably an ideological point of view, if any. What areas should government be in? Also, in what ways would government be big in this regard? In the amount of areas covered by law/regulation? The amount of laws full stop? Devotion of government in an area? Is a nationalised industry actually part of big government, as a nationalised industry doesn't have require government to actually be involved in it? This is the area that needs to be addressed.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Surely libertarians do in reality accept that the government has some role to play?

In any case, trying to demonise people because of their views on the role of the government is pointless. I'm sure leftists aren't out to cause a moral breakdown by stealing the fruits of peoples' labour and encouraging poor people to be lazy. Likewise, I'm sure the Christian right aren't all lacking in compassion and wanting to keep the poor down just because they don't agree with the idea of handouts. At the end of the day, this isn't a class war with the poor and the rich vying for power. It's about promoting a system of government that they believe will work effectively for the good of society as a whole.

IMO, the need for various sizes of government various throughout history. It's not a case of big or small government always being good, the effectiveness of either approach is going to depend on a huge variety of factors whether they are social, economic, political, or whatever. For a pretty random example, the more centralised government which emerged in Europe throughout the medieval era and into the early modern period of history was clearly important in creating stable, prosperous states. But as the real wealth moved to the seas with the discovery of the New World and what not, then the protectionist policies of the absolutist monarchs and their support for the old feudal order became a barrier to progress and development.

The ideological associations of the big/small government positions has also changed a lot throughout history. Once upon a time, it was libertarianism that was the radical thing to be. And conservatism was much more associated with protectionism, the nationalisation of industries, the welfare state etc.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Also, I think there's a slight misunderstanding here. I say that small government can - and, I would go so far to say, sometimes does - have racial implications because, as I noted above, it usually entails curtailing spending on programs that would help the lower classes (and guess which class typically has the most minorities?). If a government can simultaneously be small and support strong social safety nets, well, I guess I wouldn't have a problem with it. But I'm left to wonder; what is meant by "small government" if not one that doesn't provide those services?

One that doesn't regulate businesses as the feds used to regulate trucking and airline industries.

One that doesn't wage a full on war on drugs.

One that doesn't give military equipment and vehicles to police and encourage them to be used against non-violent civilians in the dead of night.

One that doesn't spy or wiretap Americans without warrants.

One that doesn't have an excess of committees and commissions appointed to study any number of things.

One that doesn't pass a lot of laws saying what you can and can't do with your property.

One that doesn't authorize agencies to declare certain substances illegal or controlled under their own authority.

One that doesn't allow and encourage the seizing of goods from people not convicted or even charged with a crime.

One that doesn't provide large subsidies to certain businesses that distort the free market.

One that doesn't have lawmakers jetting around in military airplanes to 'fact-finding' missions on tropical islands.

One that doesn't have tens of thousands of felonies, making each citizen a felon three times a day, where any prosecutor can find a way to send you to jail.

One that doesn't encourage prosecutors to throw the book at people who violated some obscure legalistic law where no-one is harmed or victimized or wants them arrested.

One that doesn't have huge amounts of pork written into Congressional bills.

One that doesn't send out agents to meet gun-store owners, manufacture a crime, then arrest the store owner.

One that doesn't send federal agents to break into stores selling a leaf people can burn like a cigarette.

One that doesn't have agencies that unilaterally declare human respiratory by-products are pollutants.

One that doesn't have agencies that publish many books containing all the regulations written by the agency that are given force of law.

One that doesn't use the commerce clause to prohibit and regulate a huge number of activities that have nothing to do with what the original phrase meant, like prohibiting guns near school zones.

One that doesn't prohibit free speech.

I could go on. It's stupid to say people who want small government are racist; that only shows a great lack of knowledge.

CR

[Major Robert Dump]

It's not out fault Joe Politician would rather cut welfare than trim his staff and get rid of his limo.

Any idea how large our beloved Senators and Rep staffs are and the office budgets they command? And yet they still manage to accomplish anything.

Any idea which law passed by congress always goes into effect immediately, rather than waiting for the next session beofre going into effect like most laws? Guess...someone humor me, please

[Furunculus]

Same question as "what does it mean by 'big government'".

In short "big government" is a term just thrown about by people who think they know what they are talking about and look clever by doing it. They blame all their problems on this nefarious and imaginary 'big government' without a clue to what they are thinking they are implying.

<some stuff>


big government is when the government decides it is okay to tax and spend nearly half the annual wealth of the country.
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/downchart_ukgs.php?year=1980_2011&view=1&expand=&units=p&fy=2009&chart=F0-total&bar=1&stack=1&size=m&color=c&title=

it is, in my opinion, immoral.

[Beskar]

big government is when the government decides it is okay to tax and spend nearly half the annual wealth of the country.

it is, in my opinion, immoral.

:laugh4:

Furunculus, go back in your posts, if you haven't noticed. The number keeps getting larger and larger. A few weeks ago, you was talking about 30%, a week or so ago, you was saying 40%, a day or so ago, you was saying 44%, now you are saying 50%.

I am not sure if this is intentional, but you have to agree, it is amusing.

I already answered this point a while ago anyway. Morality can only be applied to how a resource has been used and what purpose, thus having "50%" or probably this time tomorrow, 55%, of it spent it not the issue within itself.

[Ironside]

CR isn't that exactly what's wrong with how the libertarians treat thier ideas? Those are signs of an obtrusive goverment, not its size. Our scandinavian goverment plays around with almost twice of the GDP compared to the US and most of those points doesn't either happen or are considered scandals with severe repercussions if they do happen.

Instead of actively working against these things to happen it's almost like they hide in the woods away from the evil goverment, while cheering for evey mistake, because that one might be one that convinces the populace that the goverment shouldn't do this. Instead nothing happens and the ones with power is still left on their seats.

I do like that you prefer you goverment with an excess of committees and commissions appointed to study any number of things though. :laugh4:
Anyway, the committee system makes sense because it's a form of specialisation and keeps the whole goverment from being overwhelmed by the sheer amount of work, even if sound excessive when they always refer to those committees and commissions.

[Furunculus]

:laugh4:

Furunculus, go back in your posts, if you haven't noticed. The number keeps getting larger and larger. A few weeks ago, you was talking about 30%, a week or so ago, you was saying 40%, a day or so ago, you was saying 44%, now you are saying 50%.
I am not sure if this is intentional, but you have to agree, it is amusing.

I already answered this point a while ago anyway. Morality can only be applied to how a resource has been used and what purpose, thus having "50%" or probably this time tomorrow, 55%, of it spent it not the issue within itself.

no, you are suffering an extreme lack of comphrehension.
what i have said:
"public spending is roughly 45% of GDP"
"anything more than 40% of GDP is immoral"
"i won't stop compalining about big government until public spending reduces to a third"
"big government is when the government decides it is okay to tax and spend nearly half the annual wealth of the country."
Not one of those statements is incompatible with any of the others, what is funny is your inability to comphrehend. perhaps it is because you are too preoccupied lavishing praise on your role-model?

you answered it to your satisfaction perhaps, certainly not to mine. any government that believes it is ok to spend upwards of half the wealth of the nation on annual public spending is an immoral force in my opinion. that does not and will not change.

[HoreTore]

The companies where the Norwegian State is a major owner has consistently beaten the rest of the stock exchange for the last 10 years.

And thanks to the creation of the oil-fund, we now have zero debt after the financial crisis....

[Furunculus]

norway is indeed uniquely blessed.

[HoreTore]

norway is indeed uniquely blessed.

Nonsense. It's simply the benefits of having an active state.

The simple fact is that companies with state ownership perform better than those without.

[Furunculus]

and nothing to do with the fact that you have a population that would fit inside your typical english pub, sat on top of enough oil to make some middle eastern sheiks green with envy.............?

[Beskar]

norway is indeed uniquely blessed.

Indeed, they never elected Thatcher.

[Furunculus]

Indeed, they never elected Thatcher.

lol.

[HoreTore]

and nothing to do with the fact that you have a population that would fit inside your typical english pub, sat on top of enough oil to make some middle eastern sheiks green with envy.............?

That would explain our wealth, yes. It would not explain how companies owned in part by the government performs better than other companies.

[Furunculus]

quite so.

[Beskar]

Because they have no competition, thus economics of scale. They were actually efficiently organised and their mandate was to pour profits into the country opposed to the chairmans and stockholders back-pockets.

[HoreTore]

Because they have no competition, thus economics of scale. They were actually efficiently organised and their mandate was to pour profits into the country opposed to the chairmans and stockholders back-pockets.

No competition? Not sure what you mean here.... Telenor, for example, is just one of dozens of telecoms providers...

[Crazed Rabbit]

CR isn't that exactly what's wrong with how the libertarians treat thier ideas? Those are signs of an obtrusive goverment, not its size. Our scandinavian goverment plays around with almost twice of the GDP compared to the US and most of those points doesn't either happen or are considered scandals with severe repercussions if they do happen.

Instead of actively working against these things to happen it's almost like they hide in the woods away from the evil goverment, while cheering for evey mistake, because that one might be one that convinces the populace that the goverment shouldn't do this. Instead nothing happens and the ones with power is still left on their seats.

Indeed, that's the point of the article; libertarians must know their enemy in order to defeat it. But I fail to see how a government can be so large and not be intrusive; what are they funding with all that money?


I do like that you prefer you goverment with an excess of committees and commissions appointed to study any number of things though. :laugh4:

:sweatdrop:
Corrected.


That would explain our wealth, yes. It would not explain how companies owned in part by the government performs better than other companies.

In the US, government sponsored enterprises, of which they are few*, get special treatment from the government. Now if you're part-state-owned companies don't get any special treatment, then good for them. But I suspect even if they aren't specific laws written to favor them (as in the US), they do receive special consideration from lawmakers and the government.

CR
*Of course, that does include Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, who were protected by legislators and encouraged to do the things that helped lead to the housing crash.

[Ironside]

Indeed, that's the point of the article; libertarians must know their enemy in order to defeat it. But I fail to see how a government can be so large and not be intrusive; what are they funding with all that money?


Generally stuff that is considered as acceptable, because it's value to society is higher than any loss of freedom, that in turn can often be minor. Education, infrastructure, healthcare and welfare for example. You want all of them in any case (even if welfare might count as a economic buffert with 100% privatisation). For the wast majority the choises would be the same with a private system as the public one, namely the closest one that keeps a high enough standard, and since you got no restrictions on moving.

Would you consider taking welfare as intrusive (outside the taxpayer)?

To take another one that I can get your point about. The police. Do you need law enforcement? Yes. Does money affect how intrusive the police are? No, the regulations do. And then we we have the regulation thats protecting us from cheap and stupid, like sanitation laws. Its not really a big loss of freedom to loose the risk of food poisoning, outside how you treat the food yourself.

And there's those markets that cannot really function as a normal free market. Take snow plowing of the public roads for example, you cannot have that of vastly varying quality in small sections. So you'll need some sort of public cash to finance it. You can have it on contract, but that's about it for privatisation.

Or culture, that here also include grants in some cases. Whatever restrictions those have, the point is that you don't have to take those grants. So their existance doesn't reduce your freedom, it can even be argued that those grants increase the freedom since they'll give more options.

So outside the taxing, there's no inheirent loss of freedom with a big goverment. That's some of the fun stuff with that index of economic freedom in the other thread. Huge fiscal freedom (no taxes) and low goverment spending got horrible correlation with a healthy free country.

Draconic law regulation and law enforcement, the main things you oppose, don't really require much money.

[HoreTore]

In the US, government sponsored enterprises, of which they are few*, get special treatment from the government. Now if you're part-state-owned companies don't get any special treatment, then good for them. But I suspect even if they aren't specific laws written to favor them (as in the US), they do receive special consideration from lawmakers and the government.

CR
*Of course, that does include Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, who were protected by legislators and encouraged to do the things that helped lead to the housing crash.

Then you suspect wrong.

And btw, my info on this doesn't come from a liberal source either, it comes from Dagens Næringsliv, a newspaper focused entirely on commerce.