Is history repeating itself? Is the GOP following the Whigs?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Is that a well-thought-out position?

A corporation can be amoral and oppressive. So can a union, a military, a government, a fraternity, a church—there is no human organization that is guaranteed to be good.

Are small business inherently "more moral" than big businesses?

Are small armies inherently "more moral" than big armies?

Is a small church inherently "more moral" than a big religion?

So why would we take "small government as a more moral choice of governance" as any sort of given?

To flog the old and obvious example, Somalia has a very small government indeed. And Finland has a very involved and expansive government. Where would you rather raise your children?

Anyway, I think as a fixed point of reasoning, "smaller is better" leaves a lot to be desired.

And I don't 100% buy the premise that the Tea Party is really about small government. Seems to be a lot more at work.

Sorry if I was not clear. I believe smaller government to be a more moral choice as an expression of personal belief, reflecting my values. I did not make the claim that "smaller is better" in a general sense [few men would ;-)], nor for that matter am I asserting that only a small government is moral. For that matter, I agree with you that any organization of any size might enact good or evil. Size is not indicative of the morality OF the organization. My assertion refers to the morality of how/why/for what government is enacted -- not the morality of the government itself.

Smaller is, obviously, a relative term. Small for the sake of being small would be a.....small-minded choice [sorry, couldn't resist].

I am suggesting that government, funded of course by the governed, should be large enough to handle those concerns which individuals cannot handle for themselves in any practicable fashion. Moreover, I would extend that by saying that government functions should be controlled at the lowest possible level capable of performing that function (community by preference over municipality, municipality by preference over state, etc.) Keeping government "smaller" in relative terms is, to me, the only realist means of avoiding what Hannah Arendt termed "structural violence" wherein a bureaucratic system has become so byzantine that it discourages taking responsibility and ends up consuming more resources than it utilizes adequately. This is what undergirds my belief that smaller is a more "moral" choice in that it is a better safeguard of the public monies entrusted and more easily overseen by the governed.

[AntiDamascus]

I am suggesting that government, funded of course by the governed, should be large enough to handle those concerns which individuals cannot handle for themselves in any practicable fashion.

What level do you think this is? Or more exactly, what do you think government handles right now that it shouldn't?

Moreover, I would extend that by saying that government functions should be controlled at the lowest possible level capable of performing that function (community by preference over municipality, municipality by preference over state, etc.)

Are you not worried about basically taking one federal program and making 50 state ones? Wouldn't that increase the size of the government and it's complexity?